D.P.S.Chauhan - (1.) THE writ petition along with an application for interim relief was filed before the Registry on 14-2-94 and the list of fresh cases came up before me on 16-2-94 as 15th February, 1994 was holiday. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent no. 2, the Deputy Registrar, (Incharge Examination) Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Sri Sushil Harkauli, the court directed respondent No. 2 for filing the counter affidavit along with the key answers and he was allowed time to file counter affidavit and the petition was directed to be listed on 22-2-94. On 16-2-94 the orders was passed in respect of one of the question as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner disposing the same by separate order, which is on the record.
(2.) THE petition came up as unlisted on 22-2-94 on which date counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 was filed and the case at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner was put up for next date as he wanted for file rejoinder affidavit. On 23-2-94 the case was ordered to be put tomorrow i.e. on 24-2-94. On 24-2-94, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the following interim order was passed :- "After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri Sushil Harkauli, prima-facie it is a fit case where at the pre-admission stage notices be issued to the respondents. Since respondent No. 2. THE Deputy Registrar/In charge Examination, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has already been represented by Sri Shushil Harkauli, he need not be issued fresh notices. Notices meant for other respondents may be issued and served through Registry within a week. THE office report regarding service may be placed on the record. THE steps shall be taken by Monday i.e. 28-2-94. Let the case be listed on 15-3-94 which time counter-affidavit may be filed. In view of the situation as emerged during the course of the arguments I consider it a fit case for staying the typing test and interview of the candidates scheduled to take place with effect from 27-2-94. THE typing test and the interview scheduled to take place from 27-2-94 shall remain in abeyance till further orders of this Court. Let a certified copy of this order may be made available to learned counsel for the parties today on payment of usual charges." The selection as impeached in the petition was in respect of Routine Grade Clerks in the High Court and the Rules for selection of persons for the post of Routine Grade clerks are known as the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. In the order dated 24-2-94, the following words are mentioned :- "In view of the situation as emerged during the course of arguments." The situation as emerged related, inter-alia, to :- (a) Whether the Registrar, Allahabad High Court, who is appointing authority of Routine Grade Clerks, by virtue of the notification No. 2/VC 119 dated 23-8-76, has prescribed the procedure and syllabus and selection relating to the competitive examination for the Routine Grade Clerks, as required in sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules ? Sri Sushil Harkauli, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 stated that no procedure and syllabus regarding the competitive examination has been prescribed by the appointing authority. He further stated that the procedure and syllabus is for the appointing authority i.e. the Registrar and not for the candidates. He on being asked whether the Registrar has set the question papers, the court was informed that the Registrar has not set the question paper. Thereupon on being put a question whether any syllabus was in existence then he told that there was no syllabus for the examination and no such syllabus was communicated to the person who set the examination papers. (b) Whether any selection committee as appointed by the Chief Justice for holding the interview. If so who wen; the constituents ? The Court was informed by learned counsel for respondeat No. 2 that no selection committee has been constituted for holding the interview, but submitted that the Chairman of the examination is the selection committee. (c) Whether any examination committee was constituted and who were the constituents of the examination committee as there cannot be a chairman of the examination committee without there being in existence the examination committee ? Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 clearly stated that there was only a chairman of the examination committee sans the examination committee. (d) Whether it is the function of the Registrar under the Rules to get the examination conducted and selection done by virtue of his being appointing authority or the function has been entrusted to any other body after cancelling the notification relating to the Registrar as appointing authority ? (e) If the appointment of the Registrar as appointing authority has not been cancelled where was the occasion to place distrust him and what were the factors for distrust in him as it is the job of the appointing authority to get the vacancies filled up. (f) The rules have not provided (for examination committee and it is the function of the Registrar as the appointing authority to conduct the examination but in the present case, without cancelling the notification of the Registrar as appointing authority the examination committed was constituted which was non statutory and in fact there was no examination committee but was only the chairman of the examination committee and the question arises as to whether there can be a chairman without their being the committee and whether the person holding higher office than the Registrar could be the Chairman of the examination committee to assit the Registrar and to submit report to him far his consideration for the purpose of making appointment on the post of Routine Grade clerks. (g) Whether the so called Chairman of the examination committee has the authority for the appointment of the Incharge examination or not. ? (h) Whether any standard was fixed by the Honourable Chief Justice for calling for interview of the candidates before the selection committee appointed by the Honourable Chief Justice. ? (i) Whether the question No. 27 which was of objective nature, as is extracted below was misleading in nature ? "who is supposed to be the mythical founder of Jainism. (a) Risabha (b) Mahavir (c) Pershwanatha (c) Buddha (e) None of these." 27, Prashna sankhya-'Jain dharma ki sihapana kisne ki ? (a) Risabha (b) Mahavir (c) Parashwantha (d) Buddha (e) inme se koi nahi. (J) Whether the answers Id question Nos. 27 and 38 were correct In key answer provided to the examiners for evaluating the answer books and if not correct then whether the entire cyclic order of the selection list was to be effected?
(3.) THE order dated 24-2-94 which was interlocutory in nature was challenged by Special appeal No. 159 of 1914 wherein the order staying the interview and typing test scheduled from 27-2-94' was stayed. In the appeal, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the date fixed is for today. In the present case also the date fixed is for today. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out as to what has happened in the appeal today. THE case has come up as unlisted before me today and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had informed the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in writing that the case will be taken up today. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is not present in the Court. The judicial institutions are the institutions of faith founded on fairness. Any deviation from the old judicial tradition not only destroy the traditional values but also erode the faith of the people and it poses a challenge for judicial system for re-assessent.;