- (1.) B. S. Chauhan J. The petitioners applied for the job of Typist Clerk in pursuance of the advertisement published in the newspaper on 9th November, 1989. The Selection Committee completed the process of selection on 15- 11-1989 and prepared the merit list (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). The petitioners stood at serial Nos. 14, 15 and 16 in the said select lists. The first nine candidates as per the merit list were given appointments and from serial Nos. 10 to 22 were placed in the waiting list. The averment of the petitioners is that they were appointed on a short term vacancies on stop-gap arrangement. Respondent No. 1, vide his order dated 30-6-1993 terminated the job of the petitioners while they were functioning on stop-gap arrangement (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). The said letter clearly provides that the services of Sri Ajit Kumar Srivastava, petitioner No. 1, who was functioning on the post held by Km. Indu Lata Srivatava on stop-gap arrangement as the former had been prompted, for a short period, were terminated forthwith. The order further provides that the services of all those persons who were working on stop-gap arrangement on leave vacancies etc. in the office of respondent No. 1, were no more required and if any wages were due to them it would be paid to them. The petitioners made various representations to respondent No. 1 to give them job, but their representations were not considered favour ably by him. Hence the instant writ patition was filed praying that the termination order dated 30-6-1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) be quashed and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioners on regular basis against substantive vacancies.
(2.) BEARD Sri S. N, Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the State. The waiting list contained the names of thirteen candidates and the petitioners figured therein at serial Nos. 14, 15 and 16, though only the first nine candidates of the merit list had been appointed. The said waiting list had been prepared in contravention of the Rules of the Subordinate Officers Ministerial Stall (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter called the Rules) as Rule 23 (8) of the Rules reads as under : "the number of candidates to be selected will be larger (but not larger than 25 per cent) than the number of vacancies for which the selection has been made. " Thus, as only nine vacancies had been filled up, to the waiting list only two persons could have been included and as the petitioner's names had been shown at serial Nos. 5 to 7 of the waiting list, they cannot derive any benefit from the said selection list. The petitioners had been given only stop-gap arrangement for a short-term and their services have to be governed according to the terms of their appointment letter. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain as to what were the terms of their appointment. The relevent provisions of the said Rules for the purpose of this case are quoted below:- "26. Appointment by Appointing Authority.-The select list referred to in sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 23 shall be forwarded by the Selection Committee to appointing the authority mentioning aggre gate marks obtained at the selection by each candidates. The name of general and reserve candidates shall be arranged by the appointing authority in a common list according to the merit of the candidates and the appointment shall be offered in the order in which the names are arranged in the list. The select list shall held good for a period of one year from the date of selection. 27. Ad hoc appointments.- Where the list of selected candidates is exhausted or no candidate is available for appointment from out of the list of the selected candidates, ad hoc appointment from amongst persons eligible for appointment under these rules may be made by the concerned appointing authority. Such appointments should not last for a period exceeding one year or beyond the next selection under these rules, whichever be earlier''. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter dated 5-6-1992 which has been written to the Commissioner, Rural Development U. P. , respondent No. 3, seeking instructions for the employment of the persons whose names have been mentioned in the waiting list (Annexure-3 A to the writ petition ). The Commissioner, vide his letter dated 22nd July, 1992 has replied the said letter directing respondent No. 1 to act in accordance with the Government Order dated 28th January, 1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). The G. O. of 1986 provides for the pro cedure to fill up the leave vacancies or short term vacancies. It further provides to offer the employment in such contingency to the person whose name has been included in the select list. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as the names of the petitioners were enlisted in the select list (waiting list) at serial Nos. 5 to 7 the job should have been given to them on regular basis.
(3.) RULE 27 provides that the ad hoc appointment cannot be made for more than a period of one year or beyond the next selection under the said rules whichever is earlier. RULE 26 clearly provides that the select list shall lapse after one year from the date of selection. In the instant case the Rules provide that selection shall be held every year. The petitioners were included in the waiting list on 15-11-1989 and that too in contravention of the provisions of Rules 23 (8) of the Rules. The said list as per the provisions of the Rule lapsed on 14-11-1999. Petitioners filed the instant writ petition in August, 1993 for quashing the termination letter dated 30-6-1993 and also claimed regularisation. It has further been brought on record that the selection process was initiated again in 1995 and Sri Ajaj Ahmad, petitioner No. 2, had appeared before the said Selection Committee, but failed to succeed. Respondents have pointed out in the counter affidavit that the petitioners has been given temporary appointment on stop-gap arrangement on a short term vacancies in different periods and they were not given any regular appointment in temporary existing vacancies. The question of their absorption and regalarisation does not arise under the said Rules 198s. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they had been offered stop-gap arrangement within the period of one year from the date of preparation of the select list does not give them the right of regularisation at all as the stop-gap arrangement has come to an end in terms and conditions of their appointment.;