- (1.) These special appeals directed against the judgement passed by learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions, essentially assail the rejection of representations filed by the appellants seeking confirmation/regularisation of their services on the post of Routine Grade Clerk (RGC) under Rule 32 read with Rule 33 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1976 in the light of Division Bench judgement rendered in special appeal no. 563 of 2008 on 20.9.2011 pursuant to which, it is alleged, the appointment committee on 31.5.2012 worked out a discriminatory treatment between the appellants and similarly situated persons while disapproving their claims and thereby committed a serious violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The impugned order giving rise to the writ petitions was issued on 6.6.2012 whereby representations were informed to be rejected on the basis of the order passed by the Chief Justice on 1.6.2012 and by a subsequent communication the appellants were allowed age relaxation to participate in the regular selection.
(3.) Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajnish Kumar, Sri Sandeep Dixit assisted by Sri Vijay Dixit, Sri Y.S. Lohit, learned counsel, while assailing the judgement passed by learned Single Judge have essentially raised the following questions of law: (a) Whether the appellants who were appointed within the scope of powers vested in Chief Justice by virtue of Rule 41 read with Rule 45 have acquired a right of continuance in service as regular appointees in the same manner in which other employees belonging to the same cadre having been initially appointed in the same manner though under different terms of appointment and are entitled to be treated as regularly appointed persons as per rule 8(a)(i) and consequently entitled to the same protection as has been advanced to them by virtue of Division Bench judgement rendered on 20.9.2011; (b) Whether Rule 8 (a) of the Service Rules and Rule 41 read with Rule 45 for the purposes of making appointments on the post of Routine Grade Clerk in their scope and application are pari materia,with the mode of regular appointment, if not, as to what is the true scope of relevant service rules in the matter of recruitment and appointment by the appointing authority. (c) Whether the learned Single Judge has upheld the position of law correctly while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants; and (d) Whether the appellants constituted a distinct class of appointees and, therefore, their services could be brought to an end in terms of the order of their appointments restricting their entitlement for regularisation in service to age relaxation alone.;