PRAVEEN VERMA SRI TRILOKI NATH SRIVASTAVA Vs. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition, under Article 226, Constitution of India, is filed at the instance of one-Praveen Verma son of Trilok Nath Srivastava pleading inter alia amongst others, that he was appointed on ad hoc basis against one of the Class III posts in District Judgeship, Etawah vide appointment order dated 6-7-2002/Annexure-1 to the petition; appointment letter shows that it was a fixed term appointment for a maximum period ol six months and liable to be terminated even before expiry of said period in case of availability of regularly selected candidate; petitioner possesses Diploma in 'Business Administration with Computer Application' and has experience (para 6 and 7 of writ petition); it is alleged that he was allowed to work against one of six posts of Computer Operator; appointment was extended vide order dated 29-1-2003, 16-3-2004, 5-10-2004, 15-1-2005 and 15-4-2005 (Annexures-4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively to the petition); extension letter shows that there were no post of Computer Operator under relevant rules in the District Judgeship, Etawah; perusal of relevant annexure- particularly Annexure-7 mentions- "Ad hoc term of appointment of all the above named four employees are extended till 30-6-2005 in anticipation of sanction.... It is made clear their services may be terminated at any time without notice...."; an advertisement was issued or 18-11-2004 by concerned respondent/Annexure-8 to the petition; said advertisement clearly mentioned that general candidate and OBC were required to pay Rs. 1007- whereas handicapped and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe required to pay Rs. 407- as examination fee; Advertisement further indicated that (a) persons working on ad hoc basis in District Judgeship can also apply for appearing in the said examination; and (b) those who had applied in pursuance to earlier advertisement made in the year 2002 need not apply afresh; petitioner belongs to handicapped category (locomotive disability); petitioner has not filed photocopy of his application nor categorically stated that he had applied against handicapped category; petitioner seeks his claim for being considered for selection against handicapped category (locomotive disorder) in view of provisions of U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 as well as subsequent amended provisions of the said Act and also with reference to the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955; Petitioner has also fundamental right to information under Constitution but respondents did not give information in order to make selection of candidates on extraneous consideration; during arguments reference is also made to the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005; petitioner made serious allegations against the then Administrative Judge of the District Judgeship concerned, District Judge, other Judicial officers vide para 31 to 39 of the writ petition; it is alleged that work to operate Computers subsists and petitioner has worked for more than 2-1/2 years, he has nurtured legitimate expectation of being continued in service/regularization; act of the employer in terminating his services is arbitrary, vacancies of advertisement of 2000 could not be filled along with vacancies shown on the basis of advertisement of 2004; applicants against posts of 2000 Advertisement could not apply against posts of 2004 Advertisement and on that basis petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: PRAYER

(2.) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2/District Judge, Etawah (sworn by Umesh Chandra, the then Additional District Judge, Etawah). All the factual averments, having bearing on the case, have been denied.