Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition calls in question an order of the District Judge dated 18 January 2014 passed in terms of the directions issued by the Court on an earlier writ petition. It appears that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis in the judgeship at Jalaun around January 2003. According to the petitioner his services were confirmed on that post on 24 January 2004. His services are stated to have been terminated in terms of an order dated 10 November 2006 passed by the District Judge. This order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ A No. 25005 of 2008. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge in terms of his judgment dated 22 November 2013 with the following operative directions: "10. Respectfully following the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav ( supra) this writ petition is allowed. The termination order dated 10.11.2006 ( Annexure No.1) passed by District Judge Jalaun Orai is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Judge Jalaun at Orai to pass an order afresh after investigating the matter as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was made validly under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1955, namely, whether the discretion exercised by the then appointing authority was valid or not in the light of the observation made in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav ( supra). This exercise shall be completed by the District Judge within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In the event, the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai finds that the appointment was validly made then the petitioner will be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits but the petitioner shall not be paid wages for the period from the date of his termination till the date of reinstatement, on the principle of "No Work and No Pay". 11. With these observation, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost."
(3.) As is evident from the directions issued and extracted hereinabove, the learned Judge was of the view that before considering the validity of the appointment offered and granted to the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the concerned District Judge to bear in mind the provisions of Rules 4 to 11 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 as they were construed and interpreted in the decision of the Court in Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And others WP 29020 of 2007 decided on 24 July 2008. The learned Judge had consequently remitted the matter back to the District Judge to pass an order afresh after undertaking the requisite exercise of considering whether the provisions of Rule 4(3) of the 1955 Rules had been borne in mind and whether the discretion was validly exercised by the District Judge.;