Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) On 15.6.1999 a new judgeship of Baghpat was carved out from district Meerut. New posts were created in the judgeship of Baghpat and, on 23.12.1999, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for 10 posts of clerks and four posts of stenographers. The advertisement also indicated that the number of posts may increase or decrease. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner's applied and sat in the examination in which they qualified. On 5th April, 2000, a select list of 73 persons was issued by the District Judge. Petitioner Nos. l to 7 were at Sl. Nos. l 1 to 18 of the select list. Petitioner Nos. 8 to 20 were at Sl. Nos. 21 to 42 of the select list and petitioner Nos. 30 to 35 were at Sl. Nos. 45 to 47 and 49 to 51 of the select list. The petitioners were given an appointment as a clerk on a temporary basis on various dates between 6.4.2000 and 3.1.2001. The said appointments were made within one year of the issuance of the select list. On 4.4.2001, the District Judge extended the life of the select list for one more year and candidates appearing from Sl. Nos. 52-A to Sl. No. 71 were also appointed as clerks on various dates.
(2.) On 5.4.2003, the High Court issued a letter to the District Judge asking for an explanation as to how the life of the select list was extended after the expiry of one year and on what basis the appointments were given from the select list after the expiry of the period of the select list. It further transpires that the Administrative Judge of the judgeship of Baghpat submitted a report dated 28.7.2003 holding that the appointments of the candidates from Sl. Nos. 11 to Sl. No. 71 were illegal and that these appointments were made on non-existing posts and recommended the removal of these candidates and directed the District Judge to take action as per his report. Based on the aforesaid report of the Administrative Judge, the District Judge by an order dated 22.11.2003 terminated the services of 15 clerks. By another order dated 28.2.2005, the District Judge terminated the services of 4 clerks.
(3.) These 19 clerks whose services were terminated, as stated aforesaid, were those persons who were appointed after the select list was extended by the District Judge. Against the order dated 27.9.2003, 15 clerks filed Writ Petition No. 52654 of 2003 and an interim order was passed allowing these 15 clerks to continue in the service during the pendency of the writ petition. Against the order dated 28.2.2005, the remaining 4 clerks filed Writ Petition No 34546 of 200:5 in which an interim order dated 28.2.2005 was passed staying the order of dismissal. It further transpires that a Special Appeal No. 702 of 2005 was filed against the interim order dated 28.2.2005. The appellate court, while hearing the appeal against the interim order, called for the record of both the writ petitions and decided the same on merits. The appellate court by a judgement dated 31.5.2005, while allowing the Special Appeal, also allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the order of termination, and remanded the matter back to the District Judge to pass fresh orders in accordance with the observations and directions given in the judgement. The appellate court while setting aside the order of termination, issued the following directions:- "(a) The decision in respect of the respondent-petitioners shall be taken by a speaking and reasoned order as per directions contained hereinabove by the District Judge., Baghpat. (b) The District Judge shall withdraw all such similar termination orders in respect of such Class-Ill employees whose appointments were pursuant to the selections dated 5.4.2000, including those which are under challenge in various writ petitions be fore the High Court, and thereafter shall proceed to take a decision in the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the concerned employees in the same way as in the case of the respondents herein. This exercise shall be completed within one month and compliance report shall be submitted immediately thereafter.;