- (1.) It this petition directed against order dated 8th December, 1986 passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh terminating services of some of the petitioners appointed from a list prepared in May, 1986 under U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Establishment Rules, 1955 and cancelling the list by order dated 19th December, 1986 as it was in violations Rule 12, the question that arises for consideration is whether the list prepared by the earlier District Judge was of reasonable dismention, as within meaning of clause (i) of Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rule.
(2.) In 1985 an advertisement was issued for recruitment of six persons as class IV employees. More than nine hundred applications were received. Interview etc. were held by a Committee consisting of the District Judge, Special Judge, 1st Additional District Judge, Civil Judge and a Munsif and a list of 43 persons was prepared. It was cancelled by the impugned order as no norms were observed. The District Judge held that although on the date the list was prepared there were more than six vacancies and the office note etc. indicated that if vacancies likely to occur in 1986 were taken into account there could be more than 20 vacancies but since the advertisement was issued for only six vacancies the list of 43 persons was not of reasonable dimension.
(3.) A reasonable dimension is an expression which leaves ample discretion with the authority empowered to prepared the list. Whether the exercise of discretion has been proper or improper, reasonable or unreasonable shall depend on facts. No hard and fast principle can be laid down for it. For instance in this very case a list of 43 persons against six vacancies may be considered to be unreasonable. But the District Judge made inquired from persons who were members of the earlier Committee and he examined the records as well. He observed that according to members of Committee the decision to prepare list of 43 persons was taken as even though the advertisement issued for six persons only but if the vacancies whichever likely to occur in 1986 and the promotions whichever to be made from Class IV to Class III were taken in to account then the number of vacancies were more that twenty. But he cancelled the list presumable because the advertisement was only for six persons. It has not been found that more than 20 vacancies were not likely to occur. A list of 42 persons against more than 20 vacancies cannot be said to be list of unreasonable dimension should be correlated with number of vacancies advertised and not with number of vacancies which might have come to exist on the date the list was being prepared it is a debatable issue in which it is not necessary to enter as the analogy drawn from selection of University teachers or Indian Administrative Service or the principle of exclusion of others who might have become elible after the date of advertisement etc., does not appear to be appropriate. The preparation of waiting list of reasonable dimension of IV Class employee has to be understood in the context of Rule 12. I has two sub - clauses. Clause (i) requires that the names of those persons who become over age shall be deleted from time to time. Clause (ii) requires that persons from waiting list shall be given chance to work in leave vacancy to. But if they are found guilty of indiscipline etc. Than their names shall be scored out from the list. Further the rules do not place any time limit that his of one or two of three years for the exhaustion of list. All this indicates that the list has to be much more than me number of vacancies. Therefore the finding of District Judge that the waiting list was against norms does not appears to be correct.;