By the Court.—A Division Bench of this Court while hearing the special appeal alongwith a bunch of writ petitions had formulated the following questions and referred the special appeal alongwith the connected writ petitions for decision by the Full Bench. The Division Bench made it clear that it would be open to the Full Bench to frame or reframe the questions formulated by the said Bench or it may frame new questions.

“1. Whether a policy decision with regard to appointment of class III or class IV employees can be taken by the Chief Justice alone or by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Bench or by a committee authorised by the Chief Justice?

2. Since in Rule 4 for appointment on class IV posts namely, chowkidar, waterman, sweeper, etc. discretion has been conferred on the District Judge for making appointment, whether the discretion which is conferred on the District Judge by the rule making authority by means of legislation, can be taken away by the judicial pronouncement and as such even such posts should be filled by advertisement?

3. Whether the decision taken by the committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Administrative Committee or the Full Court is to operate prospectively or will apply retrospectively which would result in removal of all the employees on class III r class IV posts in the district judgeships who have been appointed without advertisement and have been regularized, whether such employees can be removed from service?

4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ?

5. Whether engaging or appointing class IV employees on daily wages requires the advertisement?”

2. The matter came up before a Full Bench on 20.8.2010, when the Full Bench was pleased to pass the following order:

“Large number of writ petitions clubbed with each other having a further clubbing with certain special appeals are listed before the Bench.

As large number of cases are listed that goes without saying that several counsel are present for either of the side.

Al though, the case of Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, who appears in one of the special appeal No. 468 of 2010 is not listed today, but he is present. We also heard his submission/suggestion on various technical aspects.

Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents with other colleagues Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri K. M. Singh, learned Advocates besides other counsel from one side are present and at the same time Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Asthalekar, Sri S. P Singh, learned Advocates are also present on behalf of the High Court.

During the course of the suggestion, it has come that in most of the writ petitions, pleadings (counter and rejoinder-affidavits) have not been permitted to be exchanged so far and they are at initial stage. Fresh writs are to be heard and decided on the facts of their own.

Submission of every learned Advocates is, that so far large number of writ petitions, listed, they being related to the selections/appointments, termination in the District Courts either of class III or of Class IV posts, either in the regular Courts or in the Fast Track Court as the case may be, they need to be decided by learned Single Judge on the basis of their individual facts and as there is no decision, they may be detached from other cases,ýÿ referred before this Bench, as after decision of learned Single Judge, there may be another opportunity to either of the side to have their submission before a Bench (Division Bench).

It has been further suggested that Special Appeals, which are against the order of the learned Single Judge, in whi