Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him as a Class-IV employee pursuant to his selection in furtherance of advertisement dated 14.5.2009 and to pay his regular salary etc.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to present dispute are as under.

3. The matter relates to selection and appointment of Class-IV staff in District Judgeship, Etah. The advertisement was published on 14.5.2009 seeking applications for recruitment of Class-IV posts. A copy of advertisement published in daily newspaper “Amar Ujala, Agra” dated 24.5.2009 is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It mentions 10 existing vacancies and three likely to occur of Class-IV, i.e., Aadeshika Vahak/Chaprasi/Ardali. One existing post of Chowkidar was also mentioned separately in the advertisement. The procedure for recruitment included a written competitive test and interview. The minimum qualification was 5th class pass and cycling.

4. Petitioner offered his candidature and participated in selection. The select list was published on 3.8.2009. 12 candidates were selected for appointment against vacancies, existing and anticipated, of Process Server/Peon/Orderly, wherein petitioner was at Serial No. 12 in the merit. One Sanjeev Kumar Gupta was specifically shown to have been selected for the post of Chowkidar. There was a separate wait list of 13 candidates.

5. The aforesaid select list was published with signature of the then District Judge, Etah, Ramesh Chandra-I. Nine candidates from aforesaid select list were immediately issued appointment letters and they joined their post. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta was also appointed as Chowkidar. Thereafter two more candidates at Serial No. 10 and 11 were appointed, leaving petitioner alone, unappointed. He made several representations requesting concerned District Judge(s) for his appointment, but in vain, and thereafter, has come to this Court.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, sworn by Chandra Bhan, Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etah. In para 7 it is admitted that not only candidates at serial Nos. 1 to 9 in the select list dated 3.8.2009 but also those who are at serial Nos. 10 and 11 were appointed, being higher in merit to petitioner. It is also admitted that Sanjeev Kumar Gupta was appointed but it is clarified that he was selected for the post of ‘Chowkidar’ which was separately advertised, and, he has been appointed thereagainst as per his selection vide select list dated 3.8.2009. It is said that in August, 2009, 11 vacancies were available and, therefore, all the eleven selectees from serial No. 1 to 11 in the select list dated 3.8.2009 were given appointment. Then proceeding further, in para 19 of the counter-affidavit, it has been said that upto 31.1.2010 no vacancy had occurred in Class-IV whereagainst petitioner could be appointed by the then District Judge. Subsequently, when another District Judge came and occupied office from 9.2.2010 to 2.5.2011, despite availability of vacancy, petitioner was not appointed. It is not known as to why and under what circumstances he was not appointed. The exact words stated in para 19 of the counter-affidavit would be useful to be reproduced as under:

19. ...... Sri Ramesh Chandra-I was succeeded by Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra as District Judge, who resumed on 9.2.2010 and remained as such till 2.5.2011, but inspite of vacancy, available for the petitioner, as to why and under what circumstances the petitioner was not appointed, Sri Mishra would have known better. Thereafter, Sri Mukhtar Ahmad succeeded Sri Mishra from 2.5.2011 and remained as District Judge, Etah till 5.2.2012 and after him, Sri Yogesh Kumar resumed as District Judge, Etah on 6.2.2012 and remain as such till 23.4.2012, but none of the former District Judges offered appointment to the petitioner. . . . . .” (emphasis added)

7. It is also said that Sri Shyam Vinod assumed office of District Judge on