Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Amit Sthalekar appears for the High Court-respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Shri Krishna Ji Khare for respondent Nos. 2, 13, 14; Shri Arvind Srivastava for respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and Shri Neeraj Tiwari for respondent No. 9.

2. The petitioner applied for selections to the post of Routine Grade Clerk (RGC) in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad in pursuance of advertisement No. 3/2004 dated 17.4.2004 for 79 posts, published by the then Registrar General of the Court. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari calling the record and setting aside the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 to 14 made by order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, signed by Registrar General on 26.7.2004, 1.9.2004 and 2.9.2004 without holding any recruitment as process of selections as provided under Rule 8 (a) of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (Rules of 1976) through competitive examination and promotion from Class IV employees. The appointments were made at the time when the selections to 79 posts of RGC vide advertisement dated 17.4.2004 was pending.

3. The petitioner has challenged these appointments on the ground of arbitrariness, and favouritism during the pendency of the regular selections by direct appointments. He submits that while the regular selections were kept pending, Hon’ble Chief Justice went on filling up these posts in exercise of his residuary and extraordinary powers under Rules 41 and 45 of the Rules of 1976 to favour the employees, who are close to him and to appease the employees association and the office bearers of the Bar Association including President. It is submitted that the powers vested in Hon’ble Chief Justice under Rules 41 and 45 are to be used for extraordinary and emergent circumstances and should not be exercised for making appointments of the wards of persons close to him and thereby misusing the trust created in his office.

4. On 24.5.2005, the Court, after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits of respondent No. 1, passed following orders issuing notices to respondents No. 3, 5 to 14 and made the appointments subject to the result of the writ petition. A further direction was issued that these appointments shall not be regularised or confirmed until the disposal of the writ petition, unless they are appeared or selected in the examination/test which has been advertised.

“Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. Notices have not been issued to the remaining respondents so far.

The establishment of the High Court had advertised 79 vacancies of Routine Grade Clerks with a note that these may increase or decrease, vide advertisement No. 3104 dated 17.4.2004. Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 informs that 32556 applications have been received (para 8 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Pramod Kumar Goel, HJS, Joint Registrar (Inspection), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad). The written examination has not been held so far and that the selections have been delayed. The petitioners have prayed for expediting the recruitment process. It is contended that in the meantime, the respondents 3 to 14 have been appointed without following any procedure of selection and without adopting any criteria or method for ad hoc appointments and thus these appointments be quashed and that during the pendency of the writ petition these appointments may be kept in abeyance.

Sri Amit Sthalekar has not given any reason either in the counter-affidavit or in oral submission as to why the examination process has been delayed, and has not given any indication of the period within which the recruitment may be finalised. He submits and has produced the original record of the appointment of respondents 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

A perusal of this record shows