Point of Law: Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Governor shall, on receipt of the list of candidates submitted by the Commission under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, make appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the order in which their names are given in the list provided the Governors is satisfied that the Candidate is otherwise qualified and entitled for such appointment under these rules. (2) The select list prepared under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 shall lapse after all the vacancies advertised or varied after due notification, are filled up

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

1. This writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, for the following reliefs:-

(i). issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to fill the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under General Category pursuance to Advertisement dated 29.7.2016 from 10 % waiting list envisaged under Rule 20(3) of U.P. Judicial service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012.

3. Heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating therein that the respondent no.1 had issued an advertisement (Annexure No.1) dated 11.09.2018 inviting application from eligible candidates for U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Examination, 2018”). The total number of vacancies advertised were 610 across all categories. The recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is governed by Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001 (Annexure No.2) (hereinafter referred to as "Rules").The final result of Examination was declared on 20.07.2019 in which cutoff marks for General Category was 560 wherein the petitioner had obtained 559 marks (Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 respectively). The following candidates of aforesaid “Examination, 2018” have already been selected under General Category on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2018:-

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the candidate mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the aforesaid list have already joined in Delhi Judicial Services, the candidates mentioned at serial nos. 4 and 5 have joined in M.P. Judicial Services, the candidates mentioned at serial nos. 6 and 7 have also joined Bihar Judicial Service and the candidates mentioned at Serial Nos. 9 and 10 of the aforesaid list have also been selected elsewhere.

6. By means of an application dated 17.09.2019 under Right to Information Act, the petitioner sought information regarding his placement in waiting list but no such information has been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal on 11.11.2019 but the said appeal has not been decided till date. The respondents have also not cancelled the candidature of the candidates, who failed to join the post as advertised above.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nadeem Anwar Vs. State of U.P. and another (2016) 2 UPLBEC 1391 and argued that the respondent no. 2 has not prepared any waiting list as envisaged under Rule 20 sub-rule (3) of the second Amendment of U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2012 and to fill up the vacancies rendered vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidates within a specified period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed in Writ A No. 1641 of 2020, Ritu Chaudhary and two others Vs. State of U.P. decided on 31.1.2020.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents despite advancing elaborate arguments, have failed to show that any waiting list as contemplated under Section 20 sub-section (3) of the amended rules has been