DILIP GUPTA,J. - (1.) THE respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are represented by Shri Amit Sthalekar, respondent No. 4 by the learned Standing Counsel, respondent No. 6 by Shri V.P. Mathur, respondent No. 11 by Shri Rishi Chaddha and respondent Nos. 13 to 16 by Shri Krishna Ji Khare, Advocate, respondent Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9,10 and 12 had been served through registered post at the address of the Registry of this High Court where they are working.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 of a learned Judge of this Court, by which the writ petitions of the petitioners-appellants have been dismissed. The High Court issued an advertisement in 1999 to fill up 135 posts of Routine Grade Clerks (hereinafter called the "R.G.C."). A select list containing the panel of 165 candidates was prepared, out of which 135 candidates had been appointed.
(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Judge was that as their names appeared in the waiting list, they should have been offered appointments in view of the provisions of Rule 10(4) of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Rules 1976') but the High Court arbitrarily appointed the private respondents without following the due procedure as not even the advertisement was issued. This contention was rejected by the learned Judge holding that as all the 135 vacancies advertised had been filled up, the selection process stood exhausted and waiting list could not be utilised thereafter; appointments of the private respondents were in accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules, 1976 which empowers the Chief Justice to pass such orders, as he may deem fit, in respect of recruitment, promotion, confirmation or any other matter.;