O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The dispute in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to appointment on the posts of Junior Clerk/Paid Apprentice in the ministerial establishment of District Judgeship of Gorakhpur on the basis of selection held by the District Judge in pursuance of an advertisement dated 8.4.1990, by which 51 vacancies were notified to be filled in by recruitment under the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1947'). There were two types of rival candidates who claimed consideration for appointment against the notified vacancies--firstly, who were already working in the Judgeship (hereinafter called as 'ad hoc employees'), and secondly, those who applied for the first time in pursuance of the advertisement and they are referred to, for the sake of clarity and brevity, as 'outsiders'.
(2.) The petitioners, who are 13 in number, alongwith other outsiders were the candidates who applied for the post. After the advertisement of the vacancies and receipt of applications from outsiders, a spate of writ petitions came to be filed by ad hoc employees who were also required to compete with the outsiders in the regular recruitment test. The leading writ petition of the ad hoc employees is CM! Misc. Writ No. 9913 of 1990. Interim orders were passed in the writ petitions of the ad hoc employees that though the selection process may go on and be completed but the re suits/select-list shall not be declared /published. The written examination was held on 9.9.1991 and after completion of the selection process, the select list was kept in a sealed cover. Two of the present petitioners alongwith four others filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 34562 of 1993 with the prayer that since process of selection has been concluded, it may be brought to a logical end by publishing/declaring the results. All the writ petitions of the ad hoc employees as well as Civil Misc Writ No. 34562 of 1993 were clubbed together and were decided by a common judgment on 24.3.1994 by Hon'ble A. S. Tripathi, J. The said decision in Adya Prasad Misra and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1670. Certain directions were issued with regard to the regularization of the ad hoc employees as well as appointment of the outsiders whose names found place in the select list which was a part of the judgment itself, it was by means of the aforesaid judgment that the select list which was kept in sealed cover, saw the light of the day. In the aforesaid case, it was held in Para 80A that the benefit of the regularization policy be further extended by this judicial pronouncement that all the employees who have put in three years of service in civil courts shall be considered for regularisation subject to their eligibility for the post and their work and conduct being found satisfactory. A mandamus was issued for consideration of regularization besides the employees who had been appointed before 7.8.1989 also the employees who were appointed before 21.5.1992, the moment they complete three years of service. A further mandamus was Issued that ad hoc appointees who were appointed after 21.5.1992 and if continuing in service may also be retained and their regularization may also be considered if they continued for more than three years before any regular test is held in the meantime. If a regular test is held in the meantime, they shall appear in the test and their fate shall depend upon the result of that test. Thus, by this judgment all the employees Irrespective of the date of appointment were held entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of the directions issued. As regards the outsiders who were finally selected, the following direction was made: "4. The select list prepared on the basis of regular test held on 9.9.1990 is declared and a copy of the same is attached with the Judgment. The appointment in the existing vacancies shall be made from this list in order of merit and this list shall remain in operation till it is exhausted." Against the aforesaid decision, a Special Appeal No. 412 of 1994 was filed in which an interim order was passed on 10.4.1994 staying the operation of the judgment. This special appeal was dismissed as not pressed on 4.5.1997. Thereafter applications were made to recall the order passed in special appeal but all such applications were dismissed. A special leave petition was also filed before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed with the result that the decision rendered in Adya Prasad Misra's case (supra) became final and the directions issued therein were required to be implemented both in letter and spirit. Consequently, the District Judge. Gorakhpur regularised the services of the ad hoc appointees and in the remaining vacancies, appointed selectees in order of merit. The first appointment from the select list was made on 5.10.1995 and the last appointment of the candidate at serial number 15 in the select list was made on 30.4.1996. Out of the 15 selectees who were appointed, one did not Join meaning thereby 14 persons from the select list have been appointed and are working in Gorakhpur Judgeship. Since after 30.4.1996 no appointment has been made by the District Judge, Gorakhpur out of the select list. The petitioners are placed at serial numbers 16. 24, 27. 21, 30. 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 64, 55 and 17 respectively. They approached the District Judge, Gorakhpur to appoint them in their turn in the light of the directions issued in Adya Prasad Misra's case (supra). They also made representations in this regard. The District Judge did not appoint anybody from the select list after 30.4.1996 solely on the ground that the select' list which became effective on the dismissal of the special appeal on 4.5.1995 has lost its 'one years' life' in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Devendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U. P. and others. (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1037, in which provisions of Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of 1947 came to be interpreted. It appears that the District Judge made a reference on the administrative side of this Court and he was informed that in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Devendra Nath Srivastava's case (supra), the directions contained in Adya Prasad Misra's case (supra) do not survive ; consequently, the life of the select list after the expiry of the period of one year has come to an end.
(3.) Faced with the refusal of the District Judge to abide by the directions contained in Adya Prasad Misra's case (supra), on account of Full Bench decision, referred to above, and the administrative directions of this Court, the petitioners had no alternative but to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the District Judge be commanded to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies which are lying vacant or which may fall vacant in the near future. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been filed. In the counter-affidavit, the District Judge has expressed his inability to make the appointments in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Devendra Nath Srivastava's case (supra), and the administrative direction of the High Court.;