- (1.) HEARD Sri H.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sameer Sharma for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give retrospective effect to Centralized Recruitment Scheme as notified on 20.08.2014, in respect to the process of selection initiated earlier in the judgeship of Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) and to declare the result of the examination held on 02.02.2014 for Group D post pertaining to the said judgeship.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, an advertisement for selection and appointment of Group D posts in the judgeship of Ramabai Nagar was issued by the District Judge on 17.12.2013 i.e. after coming into force of the Rules known as U.P. State District Courts Service Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which came into force on 04.07.2013. The petitioner herein applied and appeared in the written examination held in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement on 02.02.2014. However, the result of the said written examination was not declared. While she was waiting for declaration of the result she came to know that Allahabad High Court had denotified all the vacancies of the judgeship by means of the notification dated 20.08.2014, as a consequence of the U.P. Civil Courts Staff Centralized Recruitment Scheme, 2014 formulated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High court in exercise of powers under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2013. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Rules of 2013 the District Judge is the appointing authority for the Group D post. Rule 2(6) defines Selecting Authority as a Committee comprising of (a) District and Sessions Judge (Chairman) (b) Senior Most Additional District Judge (Member) (c) Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Session Judge (Member). Rule 5(1) provides for procedure of appointment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the scheme of Rules contemplates district -wise selection only. The Selection Committee is also at the district level. Reference was also made in this regard to Rule 9. Based on the aforesaid it was submitted that the Centralized Scheme for Recruitment was against the scheme of the Rules 2013. The Chief Justice had not issued any general or special order providing for any centralized scheme. The notification in question is not applicable to the earlier examination already conducted in pursuance to the earlier advertisement. This fact should have been taken into cognizance but it appears that the same was not brought to the notice of the competent authority. Relaxation of age to the candidates who appeared in the earlier selection has also not been provided in the publication.;