SUNIL AMBWANI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sthelkar for respondents.
(2.) THE District Judge, Deoria advertised 48 vacancies of Class III employees to be filled up by selections vide advertisement published on 13 -9 -1999. Out of these 48 vacancies, 36 were on the post of Clerks in Grade III, 05 on Paid Apprentices and 07 on Stenographers. The petitioner was placed in the waiting list of paid apprentices at serial No. 2. All the selected persons joined. There was no further vacancies on which the petitioner could be appointed within a period of one year i.e. The validity of the select list in terms of Rule 14 (3) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. It appears that four employees of the Judgeship were suspended and consequently District Judge appointed some of the persons out of the waiting list on these short term vacancies. The petitioner was given the short term appointment caused on suspension of one of such employee. The appointment letter dated 7 -7 -2000 clearly mentioned at the end, that the appointment is on a vacancy caused on the suspension of an employee and that if the employee is reinstated, the petitioner's services will come to an end. Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, the suspended employee was reinstated. Consequently the petitioner's services came to an end by order dated 14 -11 -2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed person at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, who was also appointed in short term vacancy, made a representation to High Court, which was allowed and that he was given regular appointment vide order of the High Court dated 23 -5 -2001. The petitioner has claimed parity with Sri Dharmendra Kumar Chaudhari and submits that rejection of his representation violates the equality before law guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) A person in the waiting list does not have a right to be appointed unless the advertised vacancies are not filled up by the selected perrons. It is only when any selected person does not join, that the vacancies can be offered to the person in waiting list in accordance with merit position within the period of validity of the select list. In the present case, it is admitted that no vacancies were caused on account of non -joining of any of the persons selected and placed in the main list. This Court has time and again and repeatedly requested the District Judge not to make appointments on short term vacancies out of waiting list prepared after regular selection. This not only causes complications but raises hopes of the wait listed candidates who are later on engaged in litigation for decades altogether. In Madan Lal v. State of J and K, 1995 (3) SCC 486 and Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 (4) SCC 319 (Para 25) the Supreme Court held that appointments from the waiting list, beyond advertised vacancies can be made only in exceptional circumstances, and in emergent situation, and that too by taking a policy decision, which should be free from arbitrariness.;