Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -The petitioner has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs : "(i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to absorb the petitioner on the post according to the Selection List dated 24.5.1990 ; (ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (iii) to award costs of this writ petition to the petitioner."
(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, he was empannelled in the Select List prepared on 24.5.1990 for the post of Process Server and Peons in the Subordinate Civil Court of Shahjahanpur. The petitioner moved representations dated 4.10.1993 and 11.10.1993 for his absorption but they remained unactioned. Thus, compelled him to institute the instant writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the panel once formed would not exhaust ; that since the posts were lying vacant, he is entitled to be absorbed in service by the respondents and that the District Judge has appointed son of his own Peon pursuant to his selection and empanelment dated 24.5.1990. Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, accused the District Judge, Sahajahanpur of having manipulated the entire affairs by reverting Process Server from the post of chaukidar to office Peon which is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts (Inferior Establishment) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Establishment Rules'). Drawing the attention of this Court to the decision in Sailesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U. P., 1989 (15) ALR 13, he urged that life of the select list is three years and hence the petitioner has approached this Court within time. He also drew the attention of the Court to Rule 7 of the Establishment Rules which provides that no person who has been selected in accordance with sub-rule (1) shall be appointed to any vacancy unless the list of selected candidates is exhausted. He contended that the same view has been reiterated by this Court in the decision in Pawan Singh v. District Judge, Agra, Civil Misc. Writ No. 3155 of 1985, decided on 23.1.1987. He, therefore, vehemently urged that the petitioner having been selected in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Establishment Rules and period of three years from the date of preparation of the select list has not yet elapsed, he is entitled for regular appointment.
(3.) PER contra, the contention of counsels for the respondents is that it is settled law that inclusion of name in the select list or the waiting list does not confer any legal right on a person to be selected even if the vacancies remain unfilled, as such, the petitioner has no right to claim his regular appointment. The life of the select list, as has been held in Sailesh Chandra Saxena's case (supra), being three years, after expiry of such period, the petitioner has no right to seek the relief of appointment. Moreover, the petitioner having acquiesed to the order of District Judge dated 30.9.1993 and order dated 30.4.1994 appointing respondent No. 3 or the appointment of similarly appointed persons, no relief can be granted to him. It is vehemently urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. No other point was argued by the counsels for the parties.;