Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—The facts of above noted writ petitions are interconnected and also somewhat identical to each other, therefore, these petitions have been heard and are being decided together by a common judgement.

2. By Writ Petition-A No. 27299 of 2001 Ashok Kumar Pandey and 13 other petitioners have challenged order dated 13.7.2001 passed by District Judge, Allahabad contained in Annexure-8 of the writ petition, whereby private respondent Nos. 2 to 19 have been declared senior to the petitioners on the post of clerks in District Judgeship Allahabad.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that all the petitioners have been appointed as clerks in District Judgeship Allahabad on ad hoc basis from 1.10.1986 to 24.5.1989 on different dates. In pursuant thereof they have joined their posts and have been continuously working from the dates of their joining as indicated in paras 2 and 3 of the writ petition. It is stated that by circular letter issued by the High Court in Administrative side on 5.5.1985 a decision was taken to regularise the services of ad hoc employees and the District Judges were requested to dispose of pending matters of regularization of ad hoc appointees in accordance with law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12075 of 1984 U.P. Civil Court’s Ministerial Service Association v. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held that ad hoc appointees who fulfill the requisite conditions, as laid down in the regularization rules, shall be considered by the District Judge for regularization.

4. It is stated that U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 1979 Rules) as amended from time to time was rule under which the regularizations were to be done. 1979 Rules were lastly amended on 6.8.1989, whereby Rule 10 was added thereto extending the benefit of regularization to ad hoc appointments upto subsequent date. A copy of said regularization Rules, 1979 as amended in the year 1989 is on record as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. It is stated that from time to time circulars were issued by the High Court on Administrative side directing the regularization of ad hoc employees working in the District Judgeship Allahabad who had completed three years service. On the basis of directions so issued the District Judge, Allahabad considered the case of ad hoc employees for regularization including the petitioners adopting yardstick of length of three years service. All the petitioners as also some other similarly circumstanced ad hoc employees were regularised by the District Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 5.8.1993. A copy of the order of District Judge, Allahabad dated 5.8.1993 regularising the services of petitioners and other persons are on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition.

5. It is stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 19 were all appointed as clerks in different District Judgeships other than District Judgeship, Allahabad. All respondent Nos. 2 to 19 were transferred and posted in District Judgeship Allahabad on the basis of their own request and having expressed their willingness to be so transferred, despite their becoming junior to the existing members of the clerical staff in the District Judgeship Allahabad. The dates of joining of respondent Nos. 2 to 19 in District Judgeship Allahabad has been given in para 11 of the writ petition as 14.10.1992, 2.12.1992, 15.12.1992, 22.12.1992, 4.2.1993, 4.4.1993, 9.4.1993, 16.4.1993, 19.4.1993, 20.4.1993, 20.4.1993, 20.4.1993, 21.4.1993, 4.5.1993, 7.5.1993, 11.5.1993, 20.5.1993 and 21.5.1993. It is further stated in para 13 of the writ petition that transfer of each of the respondent Nos. 2 to 19 had been effected on the basis of a specific stipulation to the effect that they would join the Judgeship at the bottom of the list of existing staff. Thus, all the respondent Nos. 2 to 19 were liable to be treated as junio