- (1.) All these writ petitions arise out of advertisement dated 31.3.2007 published by Registrar General, Allahabad High Court for direct recruitment in UP. Higher Judicial Service 2007. Since pleadings in most of these cases have been exchanged, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petitions have been heard at the stage of admission under the Rules of the Court and are being finally decided by this common judgment.
(2.) In this bunch of writ petitions, there are two sets of cases. The first set of the writ petitions assail the validity of Rule 5(a) (old) and now 5(c), and Rule 12 of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "1975 Rules;while the other set of cases have been filed by persons who are presently working as Assistant Public Prosecutors/Assistant Prosecuting Officers , seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow them to appear in the aforesaid selection.
(3.) Before coming to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view, of the brief facts in various writ petitions. Ist Set of Petitions Writ petition No. 20016 of 2007 (which is treated as leading case in this bunch) has been filed by Sanjay Agarwal assailing the validity of Rule 5(a), 5(c) and 12 of 1975 Rules as violative of Articles 14, 16, and 233(2) of the Constitution of India. It also challenges the validity of Clauses (2) and (3) under the instructions of the advertisement dated 31.3.2007 providing cut-off date. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept his application treating him eligible to appear in U.P. Highr Judicial Service Examinations 2007 (hereinafter referred to as HJS Examination 2007. Writ petition No. 22132 of 2007 has been filed by five petitioners, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing advertisement dated 31.3.2007 to the extent it provides 1st January 2008 as cut-off date for the purpose of age and experience as an Advocate and has also challenged vires of Rule 12 of 1975 Rules as violative of Article 233 of the Constitution of India read with Rules 8 and 22 of 1975 Rules. Writ petition No. 21982 of 2007 has been filed by sole petitioner Smt. Sudesh seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat her within prescribed age limit and permit her to appear in the aforesaid examination after relaxing upper age limit. Writ petition No. 22356 of 2007 has been filed by Narendra Lal Gupta, assailing vires of Rules 5(a) and 12 of 1975 Rules being ultra vires of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, and has also sought a writ of certiorari quashing Clauses (2) and (3) of the advertisement dated 31.3.2007. It has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to appear in the Examination to be held pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. Civil Misc. writ petition No. 22485 of 2007 has been filed by Smt. Sarla Gupta, Advocate challenging the vires of Rule 5(c) and Rule 12 of 1975 Rules as well as Clauses (2) and (3) of the instructions provided in the advertisement dated 31.3.2007. She has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to amend the cut-off date regarding upper age limit and to accept the application of the petitioner permitting her to appear in the aforesaid selection treating her as eligible candidate. Civil Misc. writ petition No. 22841 of 2007 has been filed by Rajeev Sharma, challenging the advertisement dated 31.3.2007 to the extent it excludes the persons who were eligible at the time recruitment was announced and further seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the aforesaid examination. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20625 of 2007 has been filed by Hriday Narayan Mishra, challenging the validity of Rule 5(a) and 12 of 1975 Rules as well as Clauses (2) and (3) of the instructions of advertisement dated 31.3.2007. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21903 of 2007 has been filed by Sharad Chandra Singh and and another seeking a writ of certiorari quashing advertisement dated 31.3.2007 to the extent of eligibility clause providing cut-off date as 1.1.2008 for the purpose of age and experience as an Advocate. It has also challenged the validity of Rule 12 of 1975 Rules, seeking further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the aforesaid selection treating them eligible. IInd Set of Petitions Writ petition No. 21584 of 2007 has been filed by Bhanu Pratap Pandey and 42 others who are working as APO/APP in various districts of the State of U.P., assailing the Circular/notice dated 26.04.2007, issued by Registrar General of this Court, respondent No. 3 communicating the various District Judges not to forward applications of APP/APOs since they are not eligible to appear in HJS Examinations 2007. They have also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the District Judges concerned to forward applications of the petitioners for direct recruitment and permit them to, appear in the aforesaid selection. Other writ petitions filed by APP/APOs seeking almost same relief as in writ petition No. 21584 of 2007 are 22122 of 2007, 23441 of 2007, 23793 of 2007, 21570 of 2007, 22105 of 2007. In Writ Petition No. 21565 of 2007 the petitioners have assailed the Circular dated 26.4.2007, issued by Registrar General of this Court and has also assailed the validity of notification dated 9th January 2007 whereby 1975 Rules were amended. In Writ Petition No. 25356 of 2007 the petitioner has challenged the circular dated 26.4.2007 issued by Registrar General of this Court and also the validity of notification dated 9.1.2007 amending 1975 Rules, as ultra vires being violative of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to appear in the aforesaid selection treating him eligible in the aforesaid selection.;