DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) THE question, involved in the present writ petition is of public importance and cali for adjudication is, whether against the cancellation of examination before declaration of result, a writ petition is main-tainable? Whether the High Court through its AdministrativeJudge/orAdministra-tive Committee has got jurisdiction to interfere with the selection process, initi-ated by the District Judge to fill up the vacancies in Subordinate Courts?
(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are summarised as under: In the judgeship of Sultanpur, 12 posts of Clerical cadre and five posts,of Stenographer were advertised in October, 1998 inviting applications for regular appointment. During the pendency of the selection process, the High Court by a O.O. Letter dated 7.8.1999 granted permission for recruitment of 17 posts of clerical cadre. In pursuance to the advertisement, written test was held on 30.12.2000, typing test for the post of Stenographer was held on 11.3.2001. l n the meantime, it appears that the complaints were received by the High Court which were placed before the Administrative Committee, Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vice his order dated 19.2.2002 had stayed the declaration of the result. The Adminis-trative Committee, vide its resolution dated 30.11.2002, had resolved and sum-moned the copiesóf the written test. Acopy of the resolution of theAdministrative Committee has been filed as Annexure SA-1 to the affidavit dated 16.8.2007. After receipt of thacopies, a Committee was constituted consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Srivastava. The Com­mittee submitted its report dated April 4,2003 and recorded a finding that irregu-larities were committed during the course of examination by alteration of marks etc. The report of the Committee was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court and the Administratwe Committee, vide its resolution dated 10.5.2000 decided to cancel the examination. In consequence thereof, vide im­pugned letter dated 21.5.2003, filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, the examination was cancelled. Thereafter, the District Judge, Sultanpur, vide his letter dated 2.6.2003, has mad? request for permission to ho?d fresh test. A copy of the letter dated 21.6.2003 has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. In the State of U.P., a large number of employees ar? working in the cleri­cal cadre as well as on the post of Stenographer in Fast Track Courts. The High Court took a decision for absorption of ad hoc employees working in the Fast Track Courts against the regular vacancies of the respective districts. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 16.5.2005, the High Court directed for absorp­tion of the ad hoc employees against regular vacancies. The District Judge vice his letter dated 27.1.2001, informed the High Court that there ar? 24 posts of Clerk and seven posts of Stenographer. The communication sent by the learned District Judge indicates that the number of vacancies were mor? than what was sought to be filled up by advertisement of October, 1998. A copy of the letter dated 27.1.2001 of the learned District Judge has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
(3.) SHRI Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order submitted that the decision taken at the level of the High Court to cancel the examination is per se wrong and illegal and suffers from want of juris­diction on the ground that the District Judge is the appointing authority. It has also been submitted that persons in whose records no manipulation was done, their result should be liable to be declared. The learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the power of the High Court to cancel the examination in question, more so when the High Court itself has permitted the District Judge to fill up the vacancies in question. ;