ORDER :

Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 5th September, 2011, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.726 of 2011, declining to issue any interim directions in an intra-court appeal against the order dated 30th August, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6332 of 2011. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, wherein the petitioners herein had sought a direction to the District Judge to permit them to join as Process Servers/Safai Karamcharis, in furtherance of letters of appointment, dated 23rd February, 2011, received by them. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had observed that the said appointments having been kept in abeyance under the directions of the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative reasons and the period of 89 days for which these ad hoc appointments had been made, being over, there was no occasion for issuing directions for enforcement of the said letters of appointment.

2. When the petition came up for motion hearing, taking cognizance of perpetual complaints regarding irregularities in the recruitment's in the subordinate courts throughout the country, in order to explore the feasibility of centralizing these recruitment's and to make them transparent and transferable, we had directed issue of notice to all the High Courts to elicit their view point on these issues. Response from several High Courts has since been received. For consideration of the afore-said larger issue, we have already directed listing of this case after the ensuing summer vacation.

3. However, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the High Court and the District Judge, that since there is an acute shortage of Class IV staff, this Court may issue directions in the case, so that the vacancies are filled up at the earliest. Accordingly, we decided to take up the case pertaining to recruitment in the subordinate courts in Delhi.

4. On 23rd September, 2011 while issuing notice, it was directed that out of approximately 30 vacancies, notified vide advertisement dated 11th July, 2011, for which interviews were held, 9 vacancies shall not be filled up without the leave of this Court. During the course of one of the hearings, learned counsel for the petitioners had vehemently contended that as per the information obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, even in the subsequent recruitment's, there were serious irregularities and favouritism and thus, before adjudicating the right of the petitioners to the posts for which they were selected, this Court must also look into the manner and the procedure adopted in subsequent appointments.

5. Having regard to the serious allegations levelled by the learned counsel, we decided to expand the scope of this petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed production of the entire record relating to recruitment's to group 'D' posts, particularly pursuant to public advertisement issued on 11th July, 2011. We had also requested learned counsel for the High Court and the District Judge, to examine the records and report as to whether a proper and fair procedure had been adopted for evaluating the candidates.

6. It is stated that the entire record has been brought to the Court in a sealed cover. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, that having meticulously inspected the records pertaining to issue of appointment letters to the petitioners in this petition personally, which admittedly had been issued without any advertisement or interviews, he is not in a position to convince this Court that even subsequent selections/appointments on 20th May, 2011 as also the ones pursuant to advertisement dated 11th July, 2011 were fair and above board. He candidly admits that in the absence of any recruitment rules, some broad criteria was laid down for the guidance of the s