Dilip Gupta - (1.) -This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26th May, 2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Aligarh whereby the waiting list of the candidates declared on 21st July, 2005 for Class IV employees in the Aligarh District Judgeship was cancelled. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the appointment orders of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as Chowkidars in Aligarh District Judgeship. The relief for appointing the petitioner as a Class IV employee on the vacant post has also been sought.
(2.) AN advertisement was issued in the Newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 18th June, 2005 inviting applications for the two posts of Class IV employees in the District Court, Aligarh. It was mentioned that the number of posts can be increased or reduced. The petitioner applied for being considered for appointment against the said post and on the basis of the written examination and the interview, a list of seven candidates was declared on 21st July, 2005 in which the petitioner was placed as Serial No. 4. It was mentioned in the said list that the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 to 3, had been selected for appointment while the rest were kept in the waiting list which would be in existence for a period of two years. The petitioner claims that he was subsequently appointed as a peon in the Court of Civil Judge (LD), Atrauli as one Avnesh Kumar Sharma took leave from 25th July, 2005 upto 25th October, 2005. This appointment of the petitioner which lasted till 25th October, 2005, was made as he was at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list declared on 21st July, 2005. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the District Judge, Aligarh on 24th April, 2006, mentioning therein that as two posts had fallen vacant in Class IV category on account of the promotion of Sri Anil Rai and Sri Srikant he may be appointed. This application was rejected by the District Judge, in view of the report submitted by the In-charge, Nazarat. Subsequently, the District Judge by his order dated 26th May, 2006, also cancelled the waiting list of four persons declared on 21st July, 2005, in view of the Inspection Note made by the learned Administrative Judge on 12th May, 2006, and the circular dated 20th February, 1999, issued by this Court. Soon thereafter, the District Judge, Aligarh appointment respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as Chowkidars. The contention of the petitioner is that he was at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list prepared on 21st July, 2005, which list was valid for a period of two years but without any rhyme or reason the said list was cancelled by the District Judge by the order dated 26th May, 2006, and immediately thereafter respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as Class IV employees in an arbitrary manner without even advertising the said posts.
(3.) IT needs to be mentioned that the appointment to class IV post in District Judgeship is provided under Rule 4 of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and the same is as follows : "4. Method of recruitment.-Recruitment to the following posts in the establishment shall be made, (1) Daftaries and bundle lifters.-By promotion strictly on merits from amongst process servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes who have put in at lest five years service as such : Provided that no person shall be promoted to these posts unless he is able to read and write Hindi in Devnagri Script with correctness and fluency and can discharge the duties of the office satisfactorily and in the case of the post of daftari unless he also knows book binding. (2) Process servers, orderly, peons, office peons and farrashes.-(a) by appointment of candidates on the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 ; or (b) by transfer from one post to another according to suitability. (3) Chaukidars, Malis, Waterman and sweepers.-By direct recruitment on the discretion of District Judge." A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Judge, Aligarh respondent No. 2 pointing out that the appointments of the private respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had been made under Rule 4 (3) of the Rules. It has also been stated that the select list/waiting list declared on 21st July, 2005, would not be applicable to the Chowkidars and therefore, even if the said list had not been cancelled by the order dated 26th May, 2006, the appointments of three persons as Chowkidars could not have been made on the basis of the said list.;