S. C Mathur - (1.) THE writ petition which has given rise to this special appeal was directed against the order dated 5th August, 1992 passed by the District Judge, Meerut terminating the services of the six appellants, namely, Subbash Chandra, Jagan Singh, Dharamvir Giri, Pravez Akhtar, Smt. Damyanti Gulathi and Rakesh Kumar from the ministerial posts In Meerut judgeship THE order of termination of services was passed in pursuance of the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 8th August, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 10823 of 1989 filed by Dinesh Kumar Saxena, Sarwan Kumar, Hari Shanker Sharma, Gulshan Kaleen, Km. Anita Rajput, Eyed Qamar Abbas Zaidi, Habib Ahmad Ravlndra Kumar and Km. Sitara Begum who had been selected for appointment to ministerial posts in the year 1987 along with ?be appellants tut had failed to get appointment. THE facts about which there is no dispute may briefly be stated
(2.) WITH a view to prepare select list of candidates for appointment to ministerial posts the District Judge, Meerut held selection in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. There were two sources of recruitment (1) direct and (2) class IV employees of the judgeship. A list of candidates selected by direct recruitment was prepared on 3rd March, 1987. This list contained the names of the appellants. Thereafter a list of promotees from class IV was prepared on 29th September, 1987. On the basis of these two lists a combined select list was prepared on 30th September, ,1987. Between 4th August, 1988 and 30th June, 1988 the appellants were appointed as officiating Paid Apprentices on the fixed salary of Rs.35.000 per month. Certain candidates of this list were rot given any appointment and they accordingly filed Writ Petition No. 10823 of 1989 seeking a writ of mandamus to command the District Judge, Meerut to appoint them. The petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 8th August, 1991 on the ground that the select list was valid for a period of one year alone and that period had already expired. It appears that it has stated before the learned Single Judge who heard the petition that there were others whose names had been brought on the same select list but had been appointed after the expiry of one year of the preparation of the list and they were continuing in service. Taking note of this argument the learned Single Judge directed the District Judge to look into the matter and pass necessary order in respect of those who were appointed subsequent to 1st March, 1988. This direction was issued on the basis that the select list was prepared on 2nd March, 1987 and the period of one year expired on 1st March, 1988 when the list lapsed. Since the appellants had been appointed subsequent to 1st March. 1988 the District Judge, Meerut terminated their services by order dated 5th August, 1992. This order was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge who dismissed their writ petition. The appellants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7th January, 1993. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that since they were not party to Writ Petition No. 10823 of 1989 no adverse direction could be given against them in the said writ petition. It is next submitted that in the judgment dated 8th August, 1991 the date of preparation of the select list has been wrongly mentioned as 2nd March. 1987 and consequently the period of operation of the list has also been wrongly calculated as expiring on 1st March, 1988. The procedure for recruitment of ministerial staff in Civil Courts has been prescribed in the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, Rule 9 provides that early in each year, or as the circumstances may require each District Judge shall recruit as many candidates for his judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. From this it would appear that the recruitment is to be on yearly basis. Rule 19 requires the District Judge to invite applications by issuing advertisement in the papers having circulation in the locality. Under Pule 11, it is mentioned that the recruitment shall he based on the results of a competitive examination and an interview by the District Judge at the headquarters of the judgeship. Rule 12 provides for communal representation. Rule 14 which has important bearing on the controversy involved in the present case reads as follows : "14. Registration of Selected candidates :- (1) The names of candidates recruited in accordance with Rule 12 shall be entered in order of merit in a bound register in Form (B) prescribed in Appendix I and each entry shall be initialled and dated by the District Judge after he has inspected the original of attested copies of certificates. An entry shall be made in the remark column against the name of a candidate who has qualified himself as a stenographer under Rule 11. Note.-An official working in the regular line shall be deemed to have qualified himself as a stenographer if at any examination held under Rule it) he is certified to possess a speed of 100 words per minute in shorthand and 35 words per minute in typewriting. (2) .... ...... ...... (3) If any such candidate has not been given an appointment / offered in strict order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under sub-rule (1) within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates and he must then take his chance with others for recruitment again in a subsequent year." Clause (1) of Rule 14 requires the names of the selected candidates to be entered in a bound register. The names are required to be entered in order of merit. Clause (3) limits the life of the select list to one year. This is apparent from the requirement in Clause (3) that the name of the person who fails to get appointment within one year from the date of recruitment shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates. The question for consideration in the present ease is from what date the period of one year shall be computed.
(3.) FROM the provisions of the Rules discussed herein above it appears that the process of selection which starts with the determination of vacancies mentioned in Role 9 is completed only after the exercise contemplated in Clause (1) of Rule 14 has been done Under this clause the names have to be entered is the bound register in order of merit. Therefore, in our opinion the period of one year mentioned in Rule 14 (6) would commence from the date the names are entered in the bound register. In the present case the names were entered in the bound register on 30th September, 1987. Computed from this date the period of one year would expire on 30th September, 1988. Much prior to this date the appellants had been given appointment between 4th April, 1988 and 13th June. 1988. The appellants having been given appointment within the period of one year mentioned in Rule 14 (3) their names were not required to be removed from the register of recruited candidates. In the judgment of this Court in the writ petition of Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others this aspect of the matter has not been considered. The appellants had not been impleaded ia that writ petition and they are, therefore, entitled to bring the relevant feet which prevents their termination from service. Perhaps if it had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who decided the petition of Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others (supra) that the select list was finally prepared on 30th September, 1987 direction which resulted in the termination of the appellants services would not have been issued. In the judgment under appeal the learned Single Judge has noticed the fact that the select list was prepared on 30th September. 1987 and even then he has upheld the order of termination of service by referring to Rule 15 and showing its inapplicability. In particular the learned Single Judge has referred to the second proviso to Rule 15 wherein it is provided that nothing In these rules shall operate to the disadvantage of any person on the approved list of candidates who have already got an officiating chance and not otherwise disqualified at the time these rules come into force The learned Single Judge has emphasised the words 'at the time these rules come into force' occurring in the second proviso to highlight the fact that the proviso is applicable only to the list of selected candidates operating at the time the rules came into force. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the second proviso was not applicable to the present case However, he has not given effect to Rule 14 (3) in the light of the fact that the select list became operative only from 30tb September. 1987 and not from 3rd March, 1987 when only the direct recruits were selected.;