The High Court does not have the jurisdiction to issue directions regarding the selection and appointment of ministerial posts in the District Judgeships, as this is the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge under the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, and the Uttar Pradesh Rules for the recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Ambwani appearing for the High Court and for the District Judge, Mainpuri.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the selection held on 24. 3. 1995 for the post of Hindi Stenographer in the District Judgeship of mainpuri. It appears that the District Judge, Mainpuri Issued an advertisement which was published in the newspapers inviting applications for filling up the post of Hindi Stenographers in the Judgeship of Mainpuri. On 24. 3. 1995 the selection test for Hindi Stenographer was conducted and the petitioners participated in the same. However, it appears that the result of this selection was not declared by the District Judge, Mainpuri. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that the reason for not declaring the result was that on 23. 3. 1995 some circular letter from the High Court was received by the District Judge placing some restraint on the District judge. As yet the process of the selection held on 24. 3. 1995 has not been complete. Aggrieved this petition has been filed.

( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed and in paragraph 7 of the same, it is stated that" the High court by letter dated 14. 3. 1995 direcled the District Judges of the State not to hold any examination for recruitment of Class III employees till further orders. This letter was received in the District Judgeship of Mainpuri on 22. 3. 1995 and hence the result of the examination held on 24,3,1995 was not declared. True copy of the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 30. 3. 1995 is Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit. True copy of the circular letter of the High court dated 14. 3. 1995 is Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit. Subsequently, it appears that the high Court cancelled the examination held on 24. 3. 1995 and directed to readvertise the posts for fresh selection. True copy of the letter of High Court dated 30. 8. 1997 is Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit.

( 4 ) THERE are two sets of rules which are relevant in this case. These are : (i) The Subordinate civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, and (ii) The Uttar Pradesh Rules for the recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh. 1950. Both the set of rules have been considered by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043. This Supreme Court held that both these Rules are complementary and were applicable to the selection for ministerial post in the District Judgeship. Rule 15 of the 1947 Rules states :

"15. Appointment.--All appointments to the ministerial establishment shall be made by the district Judge. Except in the case of stenographer, first appointment shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 12 be made to the lowest posts (other posts being filled in my promotion)from amongst the candidates recruited under Rule 11 in order of merit. (2) In filling the posts of stenographers preference shall be given to officials possessing the prescribed qualifications who are already working in the Judgeship in which vacancy has occurred : provided that any person aggrieved by any order or appointment made otherwise than in accordance with these rules shall have a right of appeal to the High Court or the Chief Court as the case may be : provided also that nothing in these rules shall operate to the disadvantage of any person on the approved list of candidates who have already got an officiating chance and not otherwise disqualified at the time these rules come into force, whether such person has in fact been appointed or not. "

( 5 ) A perusal of Rule 15 shows that appointments of ministerial establishment in the District judgeships have to be made by the District Judge and, in my opinion, in view of Rule 15. the high Court has no jurisdiction to Issue any direction regarding the selection and appointment of ministerial posts in