- (1.) Subhash Chandra, Angad Prasad, Abdul Quaiyum and Narendra Kumar Singh, four petitioners, have filed the present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India praying for following reliefs : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to produce a copy of the decision of the selection committee holding the petitioners ineligible for consideration and to quash the same. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith interview the petitioners for U.P. Higher Judicial Service in pursuance to the interview letters issued to them within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature quashing the entire proceedings of interview and to direct de novo interview proceedings to be conducted of all candidates including the petitioners and only thereafter to declare the final result. (iv) writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (v) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition." FACTS OF THE CASE :
(2.) On behalf of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Registrar General of the Court published an advertisement in Newspaper dated 8th June, 2000 inviting applications from eligible persons for appearing in H.J.S. Examination, 2000, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(3.) Petitioners, vide Paras 5 to 20 of the writ petition, contend that according to the eligibility clause in the advertisement, 1.1.2001 is the cut-off date for computing 7 years' standing as an Advocate : the petitioners as Advocate had more than 7 years' standing on 1.1.2001, being eligible they applied in pursuance to the advertisement, their application forms were found in order; admit cards were issued for appearing in the written examination (held on 25th and 26th November, 2000); after three years written examination result was published in December, 2003; petitioners were called for interview initially scheduled on 8th, 12th and 15th January, 2004, petitioners meanwhile selected and joined U.P. Nyayik Sewa (on 23.3.2001, 26.3.2001, 23.5.2001 and 25.5.2001 as disclosed by the respondents); petitioners applied for permission through concerned District Judges who forwarded it to High Court/respective Administrative Judges, they were initially accorded permission; petitioners appeared on the original dates fixed for interview but later intimated of change of dates; petitioners again reported on the re-scheduled dates for interview; and that the Selection Committee did not interview these candidates on the ground that they were not eligible since petitioners had joined U.P. Nyayik Sewa (i.e. they were in judicial service) and therefore, ceased to be Advocate on the date of interview. The petitioners, therefore, felt aggrieved.;