Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE District Judgeship of Baghpat, which came into existence on account of the newly created District of Baghpat, has engaged the attention of the High Court continuously on account of un-ending controversies surrounding the appointments made in the Ministerial Cadre and has given rise to litigation which, in turn, has been the subject matter of adjudication on the judicial side of this Court. THE present litigation is the second in the series of the recent controversial appointments made which have been scrutinized on the judicial side and we have been again called upon to pronounce a verdict which, as the facts would disclose hereinafter, contain a disclosure of unsavoury acts which are not only unsustainable in the eyes of law but have also provided an opportunity to this Court to again seriously think over to provide for remedial measures in order to prevent any future mishaps which might tarnish the image of our system.
(2.) THIS newly created Judgeship has become a site of alternate unlawful invasions, by unscrupulous officers as if it was their favourite hunting resort, which historically Baghpat was during the Moghul period, and which requires an immediate favourable treatment from this Court in order to bring to an end this scene of perpetual infamous attempts made to defame the system. The genesis of this litigation is to be found with the creation of new posts in the year 1998-1999 in the Ministerial Cadre in the District Judgeship of Baghpat. We are presently concerned with such Class-III posts which carry with them a pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Even though the present controversy is in respect of four persons, yet this decision pronounces upon the legal position that shall be applicable in respect of all such appointments, as that of the four petitioners of the writ petition giving rise to the present Special Appeal. We have heard Shri Sudhir Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Amit Sthalekar on behalf of the appellants and Shri Vikrant Rana, holding brief of Shri Anup Trivedi, on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, we have also summoned the records of the writ petition and we are proceeding to decide the fate of the writ petition along with this Special Appeal as well, to which learned counsel for the parties have no objection.
(3.) REVERTING back to the facts of this case, the appointments in respect of the posts in question are governed by The Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the ''1947 Rules) read with the Uttar Pradesh Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950 (hereinafter called the ''1950 Rules). The 1950 Rules have been considered by the Apex Court in the case of O.P. Shukla Vs. A.K. Shukla, AIR1986 SC 1043 and it has been held that these Rules are complementary to the 1947 Rules and are applicable for the selection of Ministerial posts in Subordinate Judiciary. It is also admitted to the parties that the posts, against which the writ petitioners are claiming continuance, were advertised on 23rd December, 1999. A copy of the advertisement has been appended along with the writ petition as Annexure-1, which indicates the availability of 10 posts of Clerks and four posts of Stenographers with the rider that the posts are likely to increase or decrease. We are presently concerned with the posts of Clerks in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- . The records further disclose the undisputed position that the date of examination was 5th March, 2000 and the list of selected candidates which is the subject matter of present controversy was declared on 05.04.2000. This list which is the source of all trouble enlists 72 persons against 10 posts of Clerks which were advertised. 32 persons out of these 72 were given immediate appointments on 5th April, 2000. However, the four petitioners, who are before us, were not amongst the said 32 persons. The petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely, Anurag Kumar and Deepak Nigam have themselves disclosed their dates of appointments as 02.02.2002. The petitioner no.3 Shri N.K. Khare has disclosed his date of appointment as 16.05.2001 and the petitioner no.4, Mr. T.P. Yadav has disclosed his date of appointment as 04.02.2002. The first question that calls for determination in this controversy is as to whether the aforesaid four petitioners could have been offered appointments. This necessarily brings us to the question as to whether the declaration of the list on 05.04.2000 was in accordance with the Rules or not and as to whether the said list, even if found to be competent on the date of its declaration, could survive on the date when the petitioners were offered appointment or not.;