MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15 -6 -1999 a new judgeship of Baghpat was us carved out from district Meerut. New posts were created in the judgeship of Baghpat and, on 23 -12 -1999, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for 10 posts of clerks and four posts of stenographers. The advertisement also indicated that the number of posts may increase or decrease. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner's applied and sat in the examination in which they qualified. On 5th April, 2000, a select list of 73 persons was issued by the District Judge. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were at Sl. Nos. 11 to 18 of the select list. Petitioner Nos. 8 to 20 were at Sl. Nos. 21 to 42 of the select list and petitioner Nos. 30 to 35 were at Sl. Nos. 45 to 47 and 49 to 51 of the select list. The petitioners were given an appointment as a clerk on a temporary basis on various dates between 6 -4 -2000 and 3 -1 -2001. The said appointments were made within one year of the issuance of the select list. On 4 -4 -2001, the District Judge extended the life of the select list for one more year and candidates appearing from Sl. Nos. 52 -A to Sl. No. 71 were also appointed as clerks on various dates.

(2.) ON 5 -4 -2003, the High Court; issued a letter to the District Judge asking for an explanation as to how the life of the select list was extended after the expiry of one year and on what basis the appointments were given from the select list after the expiry of the period of the select list. It further transpires that the Administrative Judge of the judgeship of Baghpat submitted a report dated 28 -7 -2003 holding that the appointments of the candidates from Sl. Nos. 11 to Sl. No. 71 were illegal and that these appointments were made on non -existing posts and recommended the removal of these candidates and directed the District Judge to take action as per his report. Based on the aforesaid report of the Administrative Judge, the District Judge by an order dated 22 -11 -2003 terminated the services of 15 clerks. By another order dated 28 -2 -2005, the District Judge terminated the services of 4 clerks.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid directions and, observations of the appellate Court, the District Judge issued a show cause notice dated 14 -6 -2005 to the petitioners to show cause why their services should not be terminated as their appointments were made beyond the notified vacancies. The said show cause notice was challenged by a number of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 46867 of 2005. This Court by a judgment dated 7 -7 -2005 dismissed the writ petition as premature and directed the petitioners to file a reply to the show cause notice which would be considered and decided by the authority. It transpires that the petitioner filed the reply and, eventually by the impugned order dated 1 -8 -2005, the services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners have again filed the present writ petition challenging their order of termination.