AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Kant assisted by Sri Samiran Chatterji, Sri Amit Sthalekar for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are private respondents who are not represented at this stage of admission of the writ petition.
The petitioner appears to have been appointed on 29.8.2002 as class IV employee on adhoc basis by the District Judge, Allahabad. On creation of Kaushambi a new district culled out from part of Allahabad district, petitioner was attached temporary to the Court of the ADJ at Kaushambi. He joined at Kaushambi on 17.9.2003.
It further appears that the District Judge, Kaushambi advertised certain posts vide advertisement dated 4.6.2007 appended as annexure No. 3 to the writ petition for direct recruitment of employees in the judgeship. The petitioner participated in the selection proceedings but was not selected, hence by impugned order he was informed as regular selections have already been made and he was not selected.
Respondents No. 4 to 8 are working as class IV employee in District Court, Kaushambi, District- Kaushambi, at Manjhanpur. Persuant to the selection proceedings initiated by the District Judge, Kaushambi, in which they were declared selected and joined on the aforesaid posts.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th June, 2007 passed by respondent No. 3 by which he has been informed that after direct selection of respondent 4 to 8 through the examination and their having joined the posts the petitioner are no longer required to work being adhoc employee.
The aforesaid impugned order dated 30.6.2007 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is illegal and that respondent No. 3 had no authority to stop working of the petitioner on the grounds:
(a) That even if the petitioner was not selected, it was incumbent upon the District Judge to have ordered repatriation of the petitioner to the Judgeship of Allahabad from where he had been transferred to Judgeship Kaushambi even though no post remained vacant after selection at Kaushambi Judgeship. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon para 269 of General Rule Civil as under:
District Judge to be informed when increases for Copyists.- If, in any court, copying work increases so much that the existing staff of Copyists cannot copy with it, the head copyists shall at once report to the District Judge, through the Munsarim of that Court, and in the case of any other court, through the Presiding Officer of the court. The District Judge shall ascertain whether any increase of the establishment is necessary; and if an increase be necessary in his opinion, he shall report the matter for the orders of the High Court. In urgent cases the District Judge may employ extra copyists and report to the High Court.
(b) That even otherwise the selection process as per advertisement dated 4.6.2007 is without jurisdiction and against the method of recruitment is provided in U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1955. Reliance in this regard has been place upon Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules, which provide method of Recruitment is as under:
Method of recruitment- Recruitment to the following posts in the establishment shall be made:
Daftaries and bundle lifters- By promotion strictly on merits from amongst process-servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes who have put in at lest five years service as such:
Provided that no person shall be promoted to these posts unless he is able to read and write Hindi in Devnagn Script with correcness and fluency and can discharge the duties of the office satisfactory and in the case of the post of daftari unless he also knows book-binding. 1. Process servers, orderly peons, office peons and farrashes.-
(a) by appointment of candidates on the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 or,
(b) by transfer from one post to another according to suitability.
Chaukidars, malis, waterman and sweepers- By direct recruitment on the discretion of District Judge.
(c) The petitioner has become over age for appointment on any other service, hence should be considered sympathetically by the Court in terms of Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules of 1995. Rule 12 is as under:
11 Educational qualification- In making direct recruitment to the establishment preference shall be given to candidate who have passed the Junior High School or an equivalent examination and can read and write English characters and figures. No person shall be appointed to the post of process-server, bundle lifter or daftri unless he is able to read and write Hindi in Devnagri script who correctness and fluency.
Waiting List- (i) A waiting list of candidates snail be maintained for each Judgship for the posts of process-servers, ordrelies, office peons and farrashes.
No waiting list shall be maintained for chaukidars, malis, sweepers and waterman.
(ii) The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and be reserved from time to time with a view to removing there from the names of:
(a) all such candidates as are not likely to receive appointments before attaining the maxium age prescribed in Rule 8 and
(b) such candidates as are found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviour or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies, after giving them necessary opportunities to explain their conduct.
Note - The order of names in the waiting list shall be in the order in which the candidates are admitted to it but the District Judge may at the time of appointment, choose from the list the most suitable of all the candidates for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Sri Samiran Chatterji in rebuttle has submitted that in view of decision rendered in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana, candidate should be given relaxation is incumbent upon the District Judge to give preference to the petitioner in appointment.
It is lastly submitted that petitioner son of an advocate hence court may overlook legal aspect against the petitioner and shower him with mercy.
Sri Amit Sthalekar appearing on behalf of High Court as well as on behalf of District Judge submits that General Rules (Civil) 1957 do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as they apply to temporary or adhoc employment of copyists subject to the orders of the High Court. It is stated that petitioner was not employed for copying work nor was a copiest and that the engagement of the petitioner on adhoc basis was also not in accordance law, hence he has no legal fight of appointment or repatriation to Allahabad Judgeship. That he was only an adhoc employee already relieved from that judgeship, it is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner cannot get any benefit of the circular dated 6th May, 2005 quoted above.
It is urged by Sri Sthalekar that petitioner cannot challenge the selection process also for the reason that he failed to qualify in the selection. Moreover no illegality or infirmity has been shown by the petitioner in the aforesaid selection process. Only ground of challenge before the Court regarding selection is that the petitioner had already worked for sometime in the Judgeship Allahabad and thereafter at Kaushambi on adhoc basis therefore, he claims to be entitled to appoint as regular employee in the Judgeship. He stated that Rule 12 comes into force only in case where the employee has worked against the regular post for sometime and only then relaxation in age may be granted to limited extent if provided in accordance with law.
Sri Sthalekar relied upon the decision rendered in District Judge 2005 (1) ESC 74 District Judge Bagpat v. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava wherein such type of adhoc appointment of the petitioner has been deprecated wherein it has been held that an adhoc employee has no legal right to claim appointment merely because he has worked as such and he must through selection process.
Having considered giving anxious thought to the rival contention of the parties, I am of the view that Provision of 269 General Rule (Civil) 1957 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as petitioner was neither approved nor working as a copyist in the judgeship he has no legal right of absorption on the post which was to be filled up by direct recruitment. The pay scale of copiest is Rs. 4000-6000 whereas the petitioner was working as class IV employee in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 hence for this reason too para 269 of Genral Rules Civil would not apply, which specifically provide for appointment of copiest in certain circumstances and extent of work the petitioner having net been employed as a copyist. He cannot get benefit of his working on adhoc basis either under Rule 12 of aforesaid Rule or benefit of circular dated 16th May, 1995.
As regards applicability of Rule 4 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules 1955 is concerned, it is noted that the petitioner was working as peon w.e.f. 29.8.2002 and that his services came to end on 30.6.2007, hence he did not complete at least 5 years of continuous service as provided in the aforesaid Rules for recruitment on the post. He was eligible to participation in the selection process as well and can claim no legal right of consideration under the said Rule.
The petitioner cannot also get any benefit of the period of engagement in the judgeship for which he could not have been granted relaxation of about 5 years even had he been eligible. It does not matter that whether the petitioner is son of an Advocate or of any other person Equality before law cannot favour anybody. The Court has to remain impartial and not swayed by sympathy, in order to deliver and justice for ensuring that the faith of public in the judicial, deliver system is not eroded.
For the reason stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.