CHANCHAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE advertisement notice dated 21 -8 -1989, the Distt. and Sessions Judge, Jammu, invited applications for the posts of process servers in the pay -scale of Rs.630 -940 within the time specified therein alongwith the certificates. The petitioner who is a matriculate was appointed temporarily on 4 -9 -1989 as a process server in the pay -scale of Rs.630 -940 and posted against the vacant post in the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jammu. The Secretary to the Chief Justice, respondent No. 3 herein, vide his letter No. 22114/SY dated 7 -3 -1990 intimated the District Judge that the Honâ„¢ble Chief Justice had not confirmed his action in appointing the petitioner as process server as his appointment was stated to be in violation of Circular No. 10 dated 31 -8 -1989, issued by the High Court. The order of respondent No. 3 based upon the instructions of respondent No. 2 has been challenged in this petition on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was not in violation of circular No. 10 (Supra) and that the appointment made by the District and Sessions Judge, could not be set aside by the Chief Justice under Sec. 30 of the Civil Courts Act. It is submitted that after appointment, the service of the petitioner could not be terminated without conducting an inquiry or giving him a chance to explain the allegations made against him. It is also submitted that the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice which is liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by Shri Khaliq -ul -Zaman, Secretary to the Chief Justice, it is stated that as no legal, statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The appointments made by the District and Sessions Judges are subject to the control of the High Court in terms of Sec. 30 of the Civil Courts Act. It is further submitted that even though no rules have been framed, yet, the High Court has been issuing circulars from time to time in this regard. It is submitted that according to circular No. 3 dated 2.9.1971 and No. 2 dated 14.5.1982, every District and Sessions Judge is obliged to inform the High Court before the appointments are made. Vide Circular No. 10 (Supra), it was ordered that all Class -IV employees will be appointed from the area (Tehsil) in which the vacancy occurs, Respondent No, 4 had invited application for the post of process server and accordingly filled those posts which are stated to be in violation of the circular. Respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner so the post fallen vacant in Jammu Tehsil to which the petitioner is held to be not belonging. It is further submitted that the order of appointment of the petitioner was not confirmed by the respondents and he was accordingly dismissed from service. No provision of law or rule is claimed to have been violated. As respondent No. 4 was not at all eligible to call for applications for appointment in violation of the circulars (supra) the appointment of the petitioner was bad which did not require holding of any inquiry particularly when his termination was not ordered as a penalty.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.