- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. For departmental promotion to the post of Bench Secretary Grade II, an Office Memorandum dated 24- 11-1998 was issued by this Court invit ing applications up to 10-1-1999 from the Assistants of this Court who have put in not less that ten years, continuous service on 1-12-1998 in Class III cadre. Selection was to be held on the basis of the competi tive examination and interview. All the eligible candidates who had applied for the said post were to appear in the ex amination on 9-1-1999.
(2.) THE petitioners, Shatrughan Tripathi and Kamlakar Dwivedi, who were Lower Division Assistants applied for the aforesaid post. THEir applications were not entertained as admittedly they had not completed ten years continuous service in Class III cadre". Consequently, they filed the present writ petition with the prayer that they shall be treated to have been appointed in the year 1988 and if their length of service is reckoned from 1988, they would be eligible to appear in the examination for the post of Bench Secretary Grade II. In pursuance of the interim order dated 8-1-1999, the petitioners were al lowed to appear in the examination, which was scheduled to be held on 9-1-1999. The interim order was hedged with the condi tion that the result of the examination shall not be declared till further orders. The petitioners did appear in the examina tion and now an application has been moved with the prayer that the respon dents be directed to declare the result. Since the petitioners would swim or sink with the ultimate decision on this writ petition, on merits, and counter as well as the rejoinder-affidavit have been ex changed it was urged thai the writ petition itselfbe disposed of finally. Heard Sri D. S. Misra, learned Counsel, fw the petitioners, Sri Sunil Ambwani, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 4.
(3.) TO begin with, it may be mentioned that it is an indubitable fact that on 1-12-1998, which was date specified in the Of fice Memorandum dated 24-11-1998, An-nexure 1 to the writ petition, the petitioners had not completed ten years continuous service in Class III cadre and, therefore, they were not eligible to appear in the examination. The case of the petitioners, however, is that they appeared in the recruitment examination of the year 1988 respectively with Roll Nos. 22570 and 3973, and were finally selected as their names in the merit list, which contained 297 names, figured respectively at SI. Nos. 71 and 75. Out of the selected candidates, 83 persons were appointed initially and subsequently 17 more persons were ap pointed. In this manner, 100 selected can didates came to be appointed as Routine Grade Clerks (forshort 'rgc') in theyear 1988 itself. The claim of the petitioners, it is alleged, was illegally ignored on totally untenable grounds and on account of the arbitrariness on the part of the respon dent, the petitioners who were within the range of 100 selected candidates, were not extended the benefit of appointment in the year 1988 itself. The petitioners came to be appointed in the year 1989 on the basis of the merit list which was prepared in the year 1988. The gist of the grievance of the petitioners is that if they had also been appointed in the year 1988 along with successful candidates, who were much below the rank in the merit list of 1988, they would have, in the normal course completed 10 year's continuous service in Class III Cadreori 1-12-1998. The petitioners have challenged the deferment of their appointment on variety of grounds, such as the merit list was not prepared in accordance with law; the rostering was done against the Government orders and rules ; that the reservation rules were not followed with the result those persons who were not ripe for appointment were successful in getting the appointment while the successful can didates who ranked much higher have been excluded and were given appoint ment after about an year. For instance, it was pointed out that the candidates at SI. Nos. 239,258 and 270 in the merit list were given appointment in the year 1988 itself. It was further urged that though the suc cessful candidates from SI. Nos. 1 to 40 were rightly given appointment, an ar bitrary and differential treatment was meted out to the successful candidates from SI. Nos. 41 onwards. It was also pointed out that at least 28 candidates, who were legitimately entitled for ap pointment in 1988 itself, were given appointment in the year 1989 onwards. Sri. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that under the Rules separate lists of selected can didates are required to be prepared for the posts of RGC and Typist while the ap pointments were illegally made from a composite and integrated list of all the selected candidates without regard to the fact whether a candidate was selected as RGC or a Typist.;