- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the appointment letters issued to the respondents and have also prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Routine Grade Clerk (hereinafter referred to as "r. G. C. " ). The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that an advertisement was issued in the year 1999 for the recruitment of R. G. C. on 135 posts in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners applied and in February, 2001, the results were declared and a select list was issued. The petitioners' names were found in the waiting list. Some of the petitioners made a representation in the year 2002, 2003 and 2004 praying that they should be considered for the appointment on the post of R. G. C. on the basis of their names being found in the waiting list. The representations of some of the petitioners was rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by his order dated 5-12- 2003, which was intimated by the Registrar General, by his order dated 5-12-2003. Consequently, the writ petitions.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Khare and Sri V. K. Singh for the petitioners, Sri Ravi Kant, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Sthalker for the High Court and Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri V. P. Mathur, Sri K. J. Khare and Sri Rishi Chaddha for the contesting respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the life of a select list is valid for three years or till such time the next selection is held as contemplated under Rule 10 (4) of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1976 (hereinafter referred as "rules of 1976" ). The petitioners contended that without considering the select list, the High Court had arbitrarily appointed the contesting respondents without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1976. The appointments were made without the issuance of an advertisement and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the petitioners were entitled to be given preferential treatment since their names were found in the waiting list. The petitioners contended that they have a better right than the respondents as they had underwent a selection process and therefore, have a preferential right for being considered. Further, their names were found in the waiting list, the life of which was still subsisting and, on that basis also, they were entitled to be considered. In support of their submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in H. C. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and Ors. , 1991 Supp (2) SCC 421 and in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. , 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : 2006 (4) SCC 1, in which it was held that irregular appointments could not be made against the provisions of the statutory Rules. The petitioners also contended that since their names were found in the waiting list, they had a locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondents. Sri Ravi Kant, the learned senior Counsel, appearing for the High Court submitted that under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice is given full powers for making an appointment and prescribing the conditions of service. The Rules of 1976 were made in pursuance of the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The present appointments of the contesting respondents were made by the Chief Justice in exercise of the powers under Rule 45 of the Rules of 1976. The said appointments does not suffer from any irregularity or any illegality nor the appointments was made in violation of any statutory Rules. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioners had no subsisting right, either on the date when they had filed the representation or on the date when the writ petition was filed. Consequently, they have no locus standi to challenge the order of appointments in favour of the contesting respondents. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the names of the petitioners were found in the select list did not give them any indefeasible right to challenge the appointments of the contesting respondents. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any case no benefit could be given to the petitioners merely because their names was found in the select list on account of the fact that the select list had exhausted and that all the vacancies were filled up pursuant to the advertisement. Consequently, the waiting list came to an end upon the filling up of the vacancies that was advertised.
(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, the leaned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 assisted by SRI V. P. Mathur submitted that the said respondent was not appointed on an ad hoc basis but was appointed on the basis of a regular selection being held and subsequently was sent to the High Court on deputation where he was absorbed by an order of the Chief Justice in the year 2001. The learned Counsel submitted that his appointment has unnecessarily been challenged by the petitioners and that he has unnecessarily being arrayed as a party. Sri K. J. Khare, the learned Counsel for the other contesting respondents adopted the arguments of Sri Ravi Kant, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the High Court.;