- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 29020 of 2007, Manoj Kumar Yadav was appointed on 18. 10. 2001 on a temporary basis, onthepostofwaterman, bythedistrictjudge, Jalaun fora period of three months. Subsequently, by an order dated 2. 1. 2002, hisservices was regularised under the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts INferior Es tablishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). IN Writ Petition No. 48213 of 2006, Shiv Pujan Yadav was appointed on a temporary post on 11. 10. 2001 as a Chaukidar, under Rule 4 (3) of the Rules of 1955 for a period of three months and thereafter his services was regularised. Similarly, Sujeet Kumar Yadav was appointed on a temporary post of Mali on 18. 11. 2001 and his services was also regularised after the expiry of three months. Sri Ram Bhajan Kushwaha was given an appointment on a temporary basis on the post of Waterman on 16. 1. 2002, for a period of three months and his services was also regularised after three months. IN Writ Petition No. 63123 of 2006, one Sanjeev Kumar was appointed as a Chaukidar, on 1. 11. 2004, on a temporary basis and his services was subse-quently regularised on 5. 11. 2001. IN Writ Petition No. 56744 of 2006, Singh Mukesh Kumar was appointed on a temporary basis on the post of Farrash, on 8. 1. 2003, and his services was regularised after a period of three months. It transpires that against the appointment of Sanjeev Kumar and Set Kamal Pandey, two complaints were lodged by Sri Saurabh Srivastava and Jagdeep Singh, which was referred by the Administrative Judge for necessary investiga-tion, and eventually, upon an investigation, the Administrative Judge issued an order allowing the complaint of Jagdeep Singh. The Administrative Judge found that Sanjeev Kumar was wrongly offered an appointment and Jagdeep Singh was arbitrarily removed. By another order, the Administrative Judge directed the Dis-trict Judge: "in view of the aforesaid settled lega? position ws-a-ws the powers of the District Judge under Rule 4 (3) of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 a copy of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar and others (supra), is being enclosed herewith for ready reference, you are hereby required to take appropriate action against all such appointees, who had been offered appointments de horsvne procedur? known to law and in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar and others (supra ). Appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against such illegal appointees be initiated with all promptness and. . . . . . . . " Based on the aforesaid directions it transpires that the District Judge is sued notices to the employees appointed in the judgeship of Jalaun si?ce the year 2001 to show cause as to how their appointments were made without an advertisement in view of thedecision in Sachin Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others, 2005 ALJ 3100. The petitioners submitted their reply to-the show cause notices. It transpires, that thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated and, an inquiry report was submitted, holding that the appoihtments of the petitioner's were made without making an advertisement in a newspaper and, on this short ground, the services of the petitioner's were terminated by various or der, which are impugned in the writ petition. The District Judge, terminated the s?rvices of the petitioners on the ground that their appointments were made with out anyadvertisement as contemplated under Rule 4 (3)of the Rules of 1955 in view of the mandate given in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar (supra ). The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termina-tion, have filed various writ petitions which have been clubbed together. Si?ce the issue is common in all these writ petition, the same is being decided together.
(3.) THE short point which involves in the persent writ petition is, whether the Rules prescribes a procedur? for selection of a person on a Class-IV post ? and, what is the power of the District Judge while making appointments on a Class-IV post under Rule 4 (3) of the Rules of 1955 ? and whether the Rules mandates the District Judge to issue an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candi- dates before making an appointment on a Class-IV post ? To answer the aforesaid questions, itwould be appropriate, ifvariousprovi-sions in the Rules of 1955 are considered. Rule 4 pre?cribes the source of recruit ment which is quoted herein under ? "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 least five years service as such : Provided that no persons shall be promoted to these posts unless he is able to read and write Hindi in Devanagari 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) Prcess setvers, orderly peons, office peons and farrashes.- (a) by appointment of candidates on the waiting listprepared 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. ";