Back
2008 Supreme(All) 1580
[2008(7) ADJ 369]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : TARUN AGARWALA, J.
MANOJ KUMAR YADAV .......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ............Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 29020 of 2007, 48213, 63123, 56744 of 2006, decided on 24th July, 2008)
Counsel :
Ashok Khare, Amit Srivastava and Siddharth Khare for the Petitioner; K.R. Sirohi, Rajeev Gupta, S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Appointment—Post of Class IV employees, i.e., Waterman, Chaukidar, Mali, etc., in Judgeship of Lower Courts—Their services were regularised—Selection process—Is provided under U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules—Which D.J. is required to follow, while making appointments under Rule 4(3) of Rules of 1955—Issuance of advertisements, became mandatory pursuant to decision of Sachin Kumar’s case—Consequently, that decision, decided on 22.8.2005, can only operate prospectively—And, cannot invalidate an appointment, made prior to that date, on sole ground that said appointment, was made without issuance of an advertisements—Held, Rule 4(3) read with Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Rules of 1955, provided a procedure for appointment of Class IV employees, as specified in Rule 4(3) of said Rules of 1955—As appointment of petitioners were set aside, on ground that advertisement was not issued, and since appointments were made, prior to decision of Sachin Kumar’s case, appointments of petitioners, cannot be invalidated, on ground of non-issuance of advertisements—However, authority can investigate and see whether appointing authority had validly and fairly exercised discretion as per Rules of 1955. [U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955—Rules 4(3), 4(2), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11]. [Paras 5, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19 to 23]
Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. In Writ Petition No. 29020 of 2007, Manoj Kumar Yadav was appointed on 18.10.2001 on a temporary basis, on the post of waterman, by the District Judge, Jalaun for a period of three months. Subsequently, by an order dated 2.1.2002, his services was regularised under the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In Writ Petition No. 48213 of 2006, Shiv Pujan Yadav was appointed on a temporary post on 11.10.2001 as a Chaukidar, under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1955 for a period of three months and thereafter his services was regularised. Similarly, Sujeet Kumar Yadav was appointed on a temporary post of Mali on 18.11.2001 and his services was also regularised after the expiry of three months. Sri Ram Bhajan Kushwaha was given an appointment on a temporary basis on the post of Waterman on 16.1.2002, for a period of three months and his services was also regularised after three months. In Writ Petition No. 63123 of 2006, one Sanjeev Kumar was appointed as a Chaukidar, on 1.11.2004, on a temporary basis and his services was subsequently regularised on 5.11.2001. In Writ Petition No. 56744 of 2006, Singh Mukesh Kumar was appointed on a temporary basis on the post of Farrash, on 8.1.2003, and his services was regularised after a period of three months.
3. It transpires that against the appointment of Sanjeev Kumar and Set Kamal Pandey, two complaints were lodged by Sri Saurabh Srivastava and Jagdeep Singh, which was referred by the Administrative Judge for necessary investigation, and eventually, upon an investigation, the Administrative Judge issued an order allowing the complaint of Jagdeep Singh. The Administrative Judge found that Sanjeev Kumar was wrongly offered an appointment and Jagdeep Singh was arbitrarily removed. By another order, the Administrative Judge directed the District Judge :
“In view of the aforesaid settled legal position vis-a-vis the powers of the District Judge under Rule 4(3) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 a copy of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar and others (supra), is being enclosed herewith for ready reference, you are hereby required to take appropriate action against all such appointees, who had been offered appointments de hors the procedure known to law and in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar and others (supra). Appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against such illegal appointees be initiated with all promptness and........”
4. Based on the aforesaid directions it transpires that the District Judge issued notices to the employees appointed in the judgeship of Jalaun since the year 2001 to show cause as to how their appointments were made without an advertisement in view of the decision in Sachin Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 ALJ 3100. The petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause notices. It transpires, that thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated and, an inquiry report was submitted, holding that the appointments of the petitioner’s were made without making an advertisement in a newspaper and, on this short ground, the services of the petitioner’s were terminated by various order, which are impugned in the writ petition. The District Judge, terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that their appointments were made without any advertisement as contemplated under Rule 4 (3) of the Rules of 1955 in view of the mandate given in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sachin Kumar (supra). The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, have filed various writ petitions which have been clubbed together. Since the issue is common in all these writ petition, the same
