Back
1998 Supreme(All) 1428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
DEEPENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.AND AJAY PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 31986 Of 1997
Decided On : 12/16/1998
D.P.SINGH, H.N.Singh, R.B.SAHAI
The second proviso to Rule 15(2) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 does not enlarge the period of one year provided under Rule 14(3), and the appointing authority cannot make ad hoc appointments after the expiry of the select list.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT - SUBORDINATE CIVIL COURTS MINISTERIAL ESTABLISHMENT RULES, 1947 - RULE 14 (3) AND PROVISO TO RULE 15 (2) - INTERPRETATION - APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATES FROM APPROVED SELECT LIST - DURATION OF SELECT LIST - EFFECT OF SHORT-TERM APPOINTMENTS ON CLAIM FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
18 petitioners were selected for appointment to Class III cadre of Fatehpur Judgeship in 1991. They were placed on the select list, but only candidates from serial numbers 1 to 16 were given regular appointments. The petitioners were given short-term appointments in leave vacancies at different intervals, totaling two to three months in total. They claimed a vested right to be appointed against future vacancies based on the proviso to Section 15(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the life of the select list was only one year, as per Rule 14(3), and that the petitioners' names were automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates after the expiry of this period. The court also held that the short-term appointments given to the petitioners did not confer any right to regular appointment, as they were not officiating appointments. The court relied on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Devendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., which held that the second proviso to Rule 15(2) did not enlarge the period of one year provided under Rule 14(3).
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had a vested right to be appointed against future vacancies based on their short-term appointments in leave vacancies? 2. Whether the second proviso to Rule 15(2) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 enlarged the period of one year provided under Rule 14(3)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners did not have a vested right to be appointed against future vacancies based on their short-term appointments in leave vacancies, as these appointments were not officiating appointments and did not fall within the scope of the second proviso to Rule 15(2). 2. The court held that the second proviso to Rule 15(2) did not enlarge the period of one year provided under Rule 14(3), and that the appointing authority could not make ad hoc appointments after the expiry of the select list.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to claim appointment on the basis of their short-term appointments in leave vacancies.
( 1 ) THE petitioners who are 18 in number in the present two writ petitions, alongwith others had appeared in regular selection for the recruitment to Class III post in the Judgeship of Fatehpur. The recruitment was held in accordance with the provisions of the Subordinate Civil Courts ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1947) as well as the Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, 1950. A select list of the approved candidates for the year 1991 was prepared and approved by the then District judge on l9-1-1991. The names of all the 18 petitioners find place in the said approved list, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petitions. The candidates listed at S1. Nos. 1 to 16 have already been appointed against various vacancies which occurred in Fatehpur Judgeship and some of them have been transferred to other districts.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they have been offered temporary appointment on different dates in the year 1991 in leave vacancies and have worked from time to time, as and when vacancies arose, till November, 1994. Since then the petitioners are out of employment. It is alleged that a number of vacancies are in existence in Fatehpur Judgeship but the petitioners are not being appointed and instead a fresh recruitment has been notified. According to the petitioners, the life of the approved select list has been extended by the High Court which issued a circular letter on the administrative side on 28-7-1994, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said circular was however, later on, withdrawn by the High Court by its letter dated 24-8-1994, which is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition,
( 3 ) WITH regard to the appointment of the candidates appearing in the select list of the year 1991. District Judge, Fatehpur sought clarification/guidelines from the High Court by addressing letter dated 1-2-1995, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. A reply was sent on 7-6-1996 vide Annexure A-9, to the District Judge that the appointment be made in accordance with the guidelines issued by the High Court. In the letter dated 24th May, 1996, which is contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition, it was also intimated to the District Judge by this court, on its administrative side, that in view of the proposed amendment in the Rules of 1947, no recruitment to class I post shall be held by the District Judge. The petitioners, frustrated as they were, approached the Apex Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 827 of 1996, which was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioners would take recourse to the remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 4 ) AT the time when both these petitions were filed, there were said to be 14 vacancies in Class iii cadre in the Fatehpur Judgeship. The petitioners maintained that in view of the provisions of rule 14 (3), and proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of 1947, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed against existing vacancies.
( 5 ) BY means of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be commanded to absorb them on the post of Class III cadre, in the ministerial staff of District judgeship, Fatehpur against available vacancies and that a direction may further be issued to the respondents not to fill up the vacancies by any other means except by absorbing the petitioners against the existing vacancies.
( 6 ) COUNTER rejoinder, and supplementary affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is alleged than the select list of the year 1991 has lapsed on the expiry of the period of one year as prescribed under the rules and that the appointment of the petitioners against short term leave vacancies does not give them a right to claim regular appointment. It is maintained that the petitioners have, of necessity, to
