O.P.Saxena, J. - (1.) BY these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the process of selection of candidate for appointment in the ministerial establishment of Allahabad Judgeship and have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the District Judge, Allahabad to appoint them. Appointments to the ministerial establishment of subordinate Civil Courts are made by the District Judge under the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rule, 1947. Rule 9 provides that the District Judge shall recruit as many candidates for his Judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. Rule 10 provides that applications shall be invited by the District Judge in Form A in Appendix I by advertising in papers. Rule II provides that recruitment shall be based on the result of competitive examination and interview by the District Judge. Rule 14(1) provides for maintenance of the approved list. Rule 14(3) provides for appointment from the list in strict order of seniority. It further provides that the name of a candidate who has not been offered an appointment within a year of recruitment shall stand automatically removed. Rule 15 provides for appointment by the District Judge.
(2.) ON 29th June 1981, the District Judge, Allahabad prepared an approved list of 150 candidates. On 1.2.1982, his successor ordered that the name of candidates who were not offered appointment within a year in accordance, with Rule 14(3) stood automatically removed. First 45 candidates had been duly appointed. He treated the remaining approved list as cancelled. On 5th and 18th August 1983, he made ad hoc appointments. On 11th August 1983, he invited applications for preparing a fresh list. The petitioners' case that as they were appointed for short terms within a year of recruitment, the District Judge cannot treat the approved list as cancelled or proper a fresh list and should fill up vacancies from the list. Annexure 'A' gives the serial number of the petitioners in the approved list and the period for which they got appointment.
(3.) THE case of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that as the petitioners were not given short term appointment in accordance with seniority, there was no compliance of Rule 14(3) and the approved list stood cancelled and a fresh list has to be prepared.;