Judgment :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

SWP No.2190/2001 & SWP No.2206/2001

The petitioners do not wish to press these writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed as not pressed.

SWP No.1957/2001

1 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned select list dated 19.07.2001 issued for the post of Junior Assistant in the Subordinate Courts by respondent No.2 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider their candidature for the said post strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

2 Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioners is that vide Advertisement Notification dated 07.04.1997, applications were invited from eligible candidates possessing the qualification of 10+2 or its equivalent. The last date for submission was extended vide notice dated 24.02.1998. The petitioners submitted their applications, appeared in the written examination, and qualified. They were subsequently called for a viva voce test conducted at the High Court at Jammu. According to the petitioners, they performed well in the interview.It is further pleaded that respondent No.2 issued individual appointment orders on 19.07.2001. However, the petitioners have contended that the select list was neither published in any newspaper nor displayed on the notice board.

3 The petitioners have challenged the select list primarily on the ground that the entire selection process is arbitrary, unfair, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have pleaded that despite having qualified and performed well, they were ignored without justification. They have pointed out that the selected candidates lacked prior Court experience and knowledge of Urdu, which is essential for subordinate court work, whereas petitioners Nos.1 and 2 possessed such experience and knowledge. Another ground of challenge is that the inordinate delay between the advertisement and the select list, renders the selection process doubtful.A specific challenge has been raised regarding the jurisdiction of the appointing authority. Reliance has been placed on Section 30(1) of the Civil Courts Act, which confers the power of appointment of ministerial officers upon the District Judge, subject to the control of the High Court under Section 30(4). The petitioners have contended that the High Court, being merely a controlling authority, could not have assumed the role of the appointing authority. They have argued that since the District Judge did not participate in the selection process, the entire selection stands vitiated due to lack of jurisdiction.

5 Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that the petitioners, having failed to secure merit in selection, have filed the present petition on imaginary grounds. The respondents have contended that the selection was fair, transparent, and based on merit. With regard to the availability of records, the Registrar Vigilance have reported that the record pertaining to the selection was submitted to the Committee but is not traceable in the office. Despite summoning the record keeper, the record could not be found.

6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7 The case history shows that there has been a long delay in deciding the matter. The writ petition was admitted on 20.02.2002. Over the years, the case moved from a Single Judge to a Division Bench. Vide order dated 28.12.2016, the Registrar General was directed to trace the missing record. On 14.03.2017, learned counsel for the petitioners alleged serious irregularities, including the selection of underage and overage candidates, as well as candidates with criminal antecedents, and undertook to file an affidavit. The petitioners subsequently filed