Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vikash Budhwar, advocate on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1297 of 2006, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, advocate on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9351 of 2006, Sri S. P. Pandey, advocate on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7105 of 2006, Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Sri V. K. Tripathi, advocate on behalf of selected candidates (respondents) in all the writ petitions, Sri K. R. Sirohi, advocate on behalf of High Court and District Judge, Bhadohi and learned standing counsel on behalf of State-respondent in all these mat
(2.) THESE three writ petitions have been filed for quashing the select list dated 13th January, 2006, prepared for appointment on the post of Stenographer / Clerk in the judgeship of Bhadohi, as well as appointment letters issued in favour of selected candidates in pursuance thereof. Some of the petitioners were working in the same judgeship on ad hoc basis and had appeared in the examinations. Their names, however, have not been included in the select list, under challenge. THESE petitioners, therefore, further seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue till regular selections, are held in accordance with law. Facts relevant for the purposes of present writ petitions are as follows : In the judgeship of Bhadohi, sanctioned strength of clerical cadre posts is 96. In terms of the High Court circular dated 26th May, 1999, which adopts the Government order dated 3rd September, 1995, 20% of the sanctioned Class III posts are required to be filled by way of promotion from amongst permanent Class IV employees of the judgeship. Calculated on the said basis 19 Class III posts in all are required to be filled by way of promotion. An advertisement was published on 24th December, 2003 by the District Judge, Bhadohi inviting applications from eligible candidates against 15 posts of Clerk and 3 posts of Stenographers, said to be vacant in the judgeship. Bineet Kumar Mishra and another, who were working as Class IV employees in the judgeship, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 164 of 2005, (which was connected with other Writ Petition Nos. 16410 of 2004 and 38803 of 2004, filed by other Class IV employees of the judgeship), challenging the advertisement, as published by the District Judge on the ground that direct recruitment could not be resorted to against vacancies, which were within the promotion quota of 20% referred to above. Under interim order of this Court dated 23rd July, 2004, the District Judge was permitted to hold the selections, in pursuance to the advertisement, however, it was provided that immediately after the examinations are held, the answer books should be sealed and forwarded to the Hon'ble High Court, which in turn were to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General. The aforesaid writ petitions were finally decided vide judgment and order dated 21st October, 2005. The Hon'ble High Court held as follows : "From the assertions made in the supplementary-counter-affidavit extracted above, it is clear that there were 96 posts in the clerical cadre and the total number of vacancies available for promotion as per the total strength of the clerical cadre was 19. Out of these 19 posts, 9 persons had been promoted in 1997 and the total number of vacancies available for promotion in the year 1999 was 10. These 10 vacancies which were available for promotion quota continued to remain vacant till the select list of 39 class IV employees was prepared on 30.4.2003. The names of first 6 candidates were in the order of merit and was approved by the then District Judge and two candidates at sl. Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed and thereafter the list was kept in sealed cover which was opened on 30.10.2003 by the successor District Judge. The remaining 8 vacancies are yet to be filled by promotion as per the select list dated 30.4.2003. The order of District Judge dated 4.2.2005 by which representations have been decided was based on incorrect facts and he had tried to mislead this Court. However, since Sri D. L. Sharma, the then District Judge, Bhadohi has since retired, I do not propose to say anything further. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the vacancies advertised by the then District Judge, Bhadohi on 24.12.2003 to fill 15 posts of clerks was incorrect as it also included the vacancies of promotional quota. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents have agreed that the vacancies of promotional quota be filled according to the select list of 39 candidates prepared on 30.4.2003, in order of merit. The number of class III posts of clerks advertised on 24.12.2003 shall now stand reduced by the number of vacancies which will be filled from the promotional quota. District Judge, Bhadohi, who is also present in Court, shall pass appropriate orders for promotion in accordance with law and promote class IV employees to class III posts in accordance with the select list dated 30.4.2003, Annexure S.C.?. 2 to the supplementary - counter-affidavit filed on 19.10.2005. He is further directed to get back the answer books of the written examination held on 25.7.2004 which are lying in safe custody of the Registrar General of this Court and shall get the answer books examined and declare the result after the appointments are made in promotional quota in pursuance of select list dated 30.4.2003. The Registrar General is directed to hand over the answer books lying in his custody in pursuance of orders of this Court dated 23.7.2004 to District Judge, Bhadohi." In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court the number of advertised vacancies, stood reduced to 7, so far as the posts of clerk are concerned.
(3.) AFTER the answer sheets of the candidates was obtained by the District Judge, under order of this Court, the same were got evaluated and select list containing names of 20 persons, was published by the District Judge, Bhadohi on 21st December, 2005. The select list so published reads as follows : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... It is admitted on record that as against the said select list, 10 persons in all namely, respondent Nos. 4 to 13 to Writ Petition No. 1297 of 2006, have been offered appointment in the judgeship.;