A.K.YOG, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition, under Article 226, Constitution of India, is filed at the instance of one Praveen Verma son of Trilok Nath Srivastava pleading inter alia amongst others, that he was appointed on ad hoc basis against one of the Class III posts in District Judgeship, Etawah vide appointment order dated 6-7-2002/Annexure-l to the petition; appointment letter shows that it was a fixed term appointment for a maximum period of six months and liable to be terminated even before expiry of said period in case of availability of regularly selected candidate; petitioner possesses Diploma in 'Business Administration with Computer Application' and has experience (para 6 and 7 of writ petition); it is alleged that he was allowed to work against one of six posts of Computer Operator; appointment was extended vide order dated 29-1-2003, 16-3-2004, 5-10-2004, 15-1-2005 and 15-4-2005 (Annexures-4,5,6 and 7 respectively to the petition); extension letter shows that there were no post of Computer Operator under relevant rules in the District Judgeship, Etawah; perusal of relevant annexure-particularly Annexure-7 mentions “Ad hoc term of appointment of all the above named four employees are extended till 30-6-2005 in anticipation of sanction..... It is made clear their services may be terminated at any time without notice....”; an advertisement was issued on 18-11-2004 by concerned respondent/Annexure-8 to the petition; said advertisement clearly mentioned that general candidate and OBC were required to pay Rs. 100/-whereas handicapped and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe required to pay Rs. 40/-as examination fee; Advertisement further indicated that (a) persons working on ad hoc basis in District Judgeship can also apply for appearing in the said examination; and (b) those who had applied in pursuance to earlier advertisement made in the year 2002 need not apply afresh; petitioner belongs to handicapped category (locomotive disability); petitioner has not filed photocopy of his application nor categorically stated that he had applied against handicapped category; petitioner seeks his claim for being considered for selection against handicapped category (locomotive disorder) in view of provisions of U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 as well as subsequent amended provisions of the said Act and also with reference to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955; Petitioner has also fundamental right to information under Constitution but respondents did not give information in order to make selection of candidates on extraneous consideration; during arguments reference is also made to the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005; petitioner made serious allegations against the then Administrative Judge of the District Judgeship concerned, District Judge, other Judicial officers vide para 31 to 39 of the writ petition; it is alleged that work to operate Computers subsists and petitioner has worked for more than 2-1/2 years, he has nurtured legitimate expectation of being continued in service/regularization; act of the employer in terminating his services is arbitrary, vacancies of advertisement of 2000 could not be filled alongwith vacancies shown on the basis of advertisement of 2004; applicants against posts of 2000 Advertisement could not apply against posts of 2004 Advertisement and on that basis petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1-6-2005 (Annexure No. 11 of the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 District Judge, Etawah. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26-5-2005 which has not been given to the petitioner, by summoning the record. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned selection made in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18-11-2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and advertisement dated 2-5-2000. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 18-11-2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) and advertisement dated 2-5-2000. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of computer operator or any other post as Class-Ill employee. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to show the petitioners the marks secured by the petitioners. (vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to show the answer books of each subject for which the petitioners appeared in the examination and the answer books of the selected candidates to the petitioners for each examination they have appeared. (viii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to evaluate the answer books of the petitioners as well as of the selected candidates from any independent examiner. (ix) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (x) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioners.”
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2/District Judge, Etawah (sworn by Umesh Chandra, the then Additional District Judge, Etawah). All the factual averments, having bearing on the case, have been denied. At the outset we may state that serious allegations of mala fide against the then Administrative Judge of the High Court of District Judgeship, Etawah, District Judge, Etawah, other Judicial Officers constituting 'Selection Committee' and members of Staff (contained in para 31 to 39 of the petition) have been categorically denied vide paras 24 to 32 of the counter-affidavit. The District Judge and other concerned have certified in writing that they are not related to any of the selected candidates in the examination in question. Curiously, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed probably for the reason petitioner known that such averments were made-without ascertaining their veracity and for the purpose of prejudicing the Court.
(3.) IN our opinion, making serious allegation against Hon'ble Administrative Judge and learned District Judge of District, Etawah (Head of Department) by an employee of same Judgeship without verifying and ascertaining correctness of the facts which had serious consequences of stigmatizing Administration, cannot be approved. No wonder, by making such allegation, regular appointment has been delayed since this Court has passed interim order in the connected writ petition.;