The second proviso to Rule 15(2) of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, protects candidates on the approved list who have been given an officiating chance from the operation of Rule 14(3), which provides for the automatic removal of candidates from the approved list if they are not given an appointment within one year from the date of recruitment.

B.D. Agrawal, J.

1. BY 'means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought writ of certiorari to the effect that the order of the District Judge, Ghazipur, dated November 21, 1985, be quashed.

2. FOR recruitment to the ministerial establishment of the civil courts, the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1947) were enforced with effect from August 1, 1947. The provision made for the method of recruitment under Rule 9 was that early in each year, or as the circumstances may require, each District Judge shall recruit as many candidates for his judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. Even after the commencement of the Constitution these Rules continued to be in force by virtue of the provisions of Article 313 and Article 372 of the Constitution. On July 11, 1950, the State Government in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution notified "Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices". In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 dealing with these Rules the Supreme Court observed that the Rules, 1950 had the effect to supersede Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules and Appendix II to it. In consultation with this Court the State Government issued on September 20, 1969, the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment (Amendment) Rules, 1969 (for short referred to as the ' Rules, 1969 hereinafter). The 1969 Rules specifically amended the 1947 Rules. By these Rules Rule 5 of the 1947 Rules was Amended. Rule 5 dealt with the minimum academic qualification which a candidate for the post in the ministerial staff in a subordinate civil court should possess. The provisions contained in Rules 9 to 12 of the 1947 Rules remained unaccessable even after the enforcement of the 1969 Rules ; there was no effective substitution of the 1950 Rules brought about by the 1969 Amending Rules. The 1950 Rules are to be considered operating even thereafter nor are the 1950 Rules to be taken as repealed by the 1975-Rules the reason being that the 1975 Rules did not apply to the subordinate courts under the control and superintendence of the High Court.

Upon the competitive test held in this case the District Judge drew the approved list dated May, 3 1983, consisting of the names of 42 candidates in all. During the course of inspection, it appears, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge made observation to the effect that the approved list prepared by the District Judge was not according to the Government Order No. 8/4/1975-Karmik-2 dated May 29, 1979, which lays down that the list should be prepared keeping in view of the number of existing vacancies plus 25 per cent more in anticipation. The District Judge was directed to look into this and take appropriate action. In compliance to this the District Judge by order dated November 21, 1985, struck off the names of the candidates from serial nos. 21 to 42 except serial no. 38, since he had been working in the Stenographer Grade. The petitioners before us are among the candidates mentioned at serial nos. 21 to 42, whose names were struck off by the order of the District Judge dated November 21, 1985.

3. CONTENTION raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order impugned was passed under a mistaken impression since, it is urged, Government Order dated May 29, 1979, is in-applicable. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the District Judge the appointing authority, it is admitted in plain terms that this Government Order is of no application, and it is rightly so. The Government Order in question was issued in implementation of the Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1975. In Rule 2 (1) thereof it is specifically stated that they do not apply to posts in the subordinate courts under the control and superintendance of the