N.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) In all the aforesaid four writ petitions, the advertisement No. 102/1-8-Faizabad dated 26.4.2000 has been challenged by which applications were invited by filing up the vacant post of Class III employees in Civil Court, Faizabad. The maximum age limit was prescribed as 32 years for general category and relaxation was given to the reserved category candidates as per different orders of the Government issued from time to time. In writ petition 2947 (S/S) of 2000 and 2688 (S/S) of 2000, this advertisement was challenged on the ground that the maximum age limit was enhanced by the Government from 32 years to 35 years for general category candidates by making amendment in Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 by 9th Amendment on 21.1.2000. The contention of the opposite parties in these two writ petitions is that in the Rules known as U.P. Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, the upper age limit was 32 years and it was not amended by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) (9th Amendment) Rules, 2000. It has been pleaded by the opposite parties that till the date of issuance of the advertisement, the High Court had not consented for enhancement of the upper limit in the age and the High Court has superintendence and control over the staff of the Civil Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It was also pleaded that unless the U.P. Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules are amended after consultation with the High Court, the upper age limit for the recruitment on the post of Ministerial cadre in the Civil Court shall be the same as is given under those Rules.
(2.) Writ Petition No. 2291 (S/S) of 2000 was filed by Keshav Tripathi and nine other ad hoc employees working in the Civil Court at Faizabad. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 were working on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 12.8.1997 and the petitioner No. 2, 4 to 10 were working without any break w.e.f. 1.9.1997. They claimed regularisation under the Regularisation Scheme framed under the orders of the High Court in the year 1993 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh AIR 1992 SC 2130 : 1994 (68) FLR 41 (SC) (Sum) , as the services of the three stenographers and 16 copyist were also regularised in accordance with the scheme.
(3.) The petitioners of these two writ petitions also claimed their regularisation under Rule 4 of the U.P. Regularisation of ad hoc appointments amended by notification dated 20.12.2001 and adopted by the High Court by Circular letter dated 8.5.2002 as contained in Annexure No. 5 in writ petition No. 3137 (S/S) of 2003. The services of the petitioners of these two writ petitions were dispensed with by the District Judge vide order dated 31.3.2000. This order was challenged in writ petition 2291 (S/S) of 2000 and this Court had granted stay against the order by which the petitioners were ceased to work. In spite of the stay order by this Court, the District Judge passed another order dated 24.5.2003 by which the services of the petitioners were ceased from 1.6.2003. Therefore, another writ petition No. 3137 (S/S) of 2003 was filed. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners challenged their censure and the aforesaid advertisement for new recruitment before their regularisation under the Regularisation Rules, referred to above.;