Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAKESH TIWARI, J.
Krishna Kumar Saxena – Appellant
Versus
District Judge, the Selection Committee and Recruitment Committee – Respondent
Decided On : 06-07-2007
Mandamus - Absorption in Service - U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts (Inferior Establishment) Rules, 1955 - Rule 14
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mandamus to be absorbed in the post of Process Server and Peons in the Subordinate Civil Court of Shahjahanpur based on the Selection List dated 24.5.1990. The petitioner alleged manipulation by the District Judge and claimed entitlement to appointment due to vacancies and expiration of the select list.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the select list expired after three years, and the petitioner approached the Court after the expiration. The appointment of respondent No. 3 was in accordance with the Establishment Rules, and the petitioner did not challenge the appointments of others, indicating awareness of the law.
Issues: The issues involved the expiration of the select list, entitlement to appointment, and the validity of appointments made under the Establishment Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Rule 14 of the Establishment Rules, previous case law, and legal principles to determine that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment after the expiration of the select list and the validity of appointments made under the rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
RAKESH TIWARI, J.
1. The petitioner has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing he opposite party No. 1 to absorb the petitioner on the post according to the Selection List dated 24.5.1990.
(ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) to award costs of this writ petition to the petitioner.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, he was empannelled in the Select List prepared on 24.5.1990 for the post of Process Server and Peons in the Subordinate Civil Court of Shahjahanpur.
3. The petitioner moved representations dated 4.10.1993 and 11.10.1993 for his absorption but they remained unactioned. Thus, compelled him to institute the instant writ petition on the grounds, interalia, that the panel once formed would not exhaust; that since the posts were lying vacant, he is entitled to be absorbed in service by the respondents and that the District Judge has appointed son of his own Peon pursuant to his selection and empanelment dated 24.5.1990.
4. Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, accused the District Judge, Sahajahanpur of having manipulated the entire affairs by reverting Process Server from the post of Chaukidar to office Peon which is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts (Inferior Establishment) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Establishment Rules). Drawing the attention of this Court to the decision in Sailesh Chandra Saxena vs. State of U.P. 1989 (15) ALR 13, he urged that life of the select list is three years and hence the petitioner has approached this Court within time. He also drew the attention of the Court to Rule 7 of the Establishment Rules which provides that no person who has been selected in accordance with sub-rule (1) shall be appointed to any vacancy unless the list of selected candidates is exhausted. He contended that the same view has been reiterated by this Court in the decision in Pawan Singh vs. District Judge Agra, Civil Misc. Writ No. 3155 of 1985 decided on 23.1.1987. He, therefore, vehemently urged that the petitioner having been selected in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Establishment Rules and period of three years from the date of preparation of the select list has not 5, yet elapsed, he is entitled for regular appointment.
5. Per contra, the contention of counsels for the respondents is that it is fit settled law that inclusion of name in the select list or the waiting list does not confer any legal right on a person to be selected even if the vacancies remain unfilled, as such, the petitioner has no right to claim his regular appointment. The life of the select list, as has been held in Sailesh Chandra Saxena's case (supra), being three years, after expiry of such period, the petitioner has no right to seek the relief of appointment. Moreover, the petitioner having acquiesed to the order of District Judge dated 30.9.1993 and order dated 30.4.1994 appointing respondent No. 3 or the appointment of similarly appointed persons, no relief can be granted to him. It is vehemently urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. No other point was argued by the counsels for the parties.
7. Having heard counsels for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that for resolving the controversy involved in the instant case, Rule 14 of the Establishment Rules is relevant, which is as under:
14. Registration of Selected candidates - (1) The names of candidates recruited in accordance with Rule 12 shall be.
15. entered in order of merit in a bound register in Form (B) prescribed in Appendix 1 and each entry shall be initialled and dated by the District Judge after he has inspected the original of attested copies of certificates. An entry shall be made in the remark column against name of a candidate who has qualified himself as a Stenogra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
