Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—”The darkest place is under the candle stick” or more appropriately “It is darkest beneath the candle” is a proverb that was taught at elementary school. Nothing can be more apt to describe the prevailing situation with regard to appointment of Class IV employees in the establishment of the High Court both at Allahabad as well as Lucknow. The Court has been informed on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court that there exists no record of any advertisement having been published for appointment on Class IV posts. At least for the last 25 to 30 years, no advertisement has been published and to put it more exactly, the rule has been observed in its fullest breach since the promulgation of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules, 1976 (herein after referred to as Rules, 1976).

2. What logically follows is that for last nearly three decades, appointments in the establishment of High Court at Allahabad as well as Lucknow against Class IV posts have been made without any advertisement and without an invitation for participation to the public at large in the process of selection.

3. From the record pertaining to the appointment of respondents No. 4 to 16 to the present writ petition as produced before this Court, it is clear that all 13 persons have been appointed on one and the same date under orders of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice. Out of these, 3 have been appointed on making of an application duly recommended by Hon’ble sitting Judges of this Court, On the left hand side corner of the application of 4 candidates, names of officers/employees already working in the High Court has been hand written and endorsed. Two appointees are from the State of Bihar and one each from the districts of Azamgarh and Jaunpur. One is the son of an employee of this Court and another is a resident of the Colony of the employees of this Court. No selection of any kind has been held. The basis for appointment is, therefore, the recommendation of the Hon’ble Judge or the affinity to the officers/employees already working in the establishment of the High Court. Such a recommendation/closeness is available to a selected few and not to a common citizen.

4. To put it simply the manner of selection and appointment is per se violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

5. What is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

6. According to the Court, the lifeline of a democratic country is governance by the rule of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, 2009 (5) SCC 65 describes appointments without advertisement and regularization thereafter as ‘spoiled system’. There is no dearth of judgments of the High Court at Allahabad on the judicial side setting aside appointments made in public employment at various offices/departments under its power of judicial review, only on the ground that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India prohibit appointment without proper advertisement being made so as to enable the public at large to participate in the process of selection.

7. What the High Court preaches vide its judgments it does not follow in practice when it comes to appointment on Class IV posts in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad as well as Lucknow. It is dispressing and disturbing. The petitioner reminds the Court through this petition to practice what it preaches.

8. Two decades ago the Supreme Court of India, perturbed by the unabated exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, had to painfully remind the High Court of Karnataka about the width and expanse of the powers so conferred and to be exercised by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court. The judgment describes the powers so conferred by the Constitution to be bounded by solid embankments of legal principles cherished by our system with a strong cautionary that th