Allahabad High Court
Bachchey Lal Yadav & Another vs The Registrar General Of High Court Of ... on 23 January, 2018
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 AFR Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1238 of 2012 Appellant :- Bachchey Lal Yadav & Another Respondent :- The Registrar General Of High Court Of Judi.At Alld. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Ram Kripal Yadav,Satya Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- B.B.Jauhari,K.R.Sirohi,Rajiv Gupta Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 20.12.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 69541 of 2006 - Bachchey Lal Yadav and Another Vs. the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another, whereby it has been dismissed.
3. The selections on the post in question i.e. Class IV were held on 23.05.2000. District Judge prepared merit list of 68 candidates. Merit list was prepared after applying roaster. Petitioners-appellants were wait list candidates at serial nos. 33 and 34, respectively. 31 candidates were given appointments till 2006, when this court directed to stop appointments observing that wait list canot continue for years together.
4. This order was challenged by appellants in Writ Petition No. 69541 of 2006, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 20.12.2006, which has been challenged in this intra-Court appeal.
5. Learned counsel for appellants has cited Rule 12 of U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1955') wherein it is contemplated that wait list has to continue till all candidates included therein are appointed and for that period, wait list has to continue.
6. In short what learned counsel for appellant has sought to argue is that irrespective of existence of vacancies for which recruitment is made, if a select list of large size is prepared, appointing authority must exhaust entire list irrespective of time it would take in its exhaustion and till entire list is exhausted, no further selections can be made. Submission is not only patently illegal but is against the very concept of recruitment and appointment in public service which have to adhere to number of vacancies existing on the date of recruitment, and rights of candidates who become subsequently eligible to be considered for appointment etc.
7. From record we find that at the time of advertisement of vacancies of Class IV in District Judgship, there existed 18 vacancies. Selection was held and select list of 35 General candidates, 19 Other Backward Class, 13 Scheduled Caste and 01 Scheduled Tribe category candidate was prepared. All the categories were clubbed and placed under 'Roaster', and in its place a combined select list of 68 candidates was prepared against available 18 vacancies. Appellant-1 is an Other Backward Class category candidate and appellant - 2 is General category candidate. They were included in the list of OBC at Sl. 10 and General category candidate at Sl. 17. In the combined list prepared as per 'Roaster' appellants got their place at Serial 33 and 34, respectively. Aforesaid list was prepared by Selection Committee on 1st May, 2002. Appellants claimed appointments on the basis of said list, but it was found by order dated 14.09.2006 that list has exhausted qua existing vacancies and it therefore need a fresh selection.
8. Provision for making wait list is in Rule 12 of Rules, 1955, which reads as under :
"12. Waiting List.- (i) A waiting list of candidates shall be maintained for each Judgeship for the posts of process servers, orderlies, 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 revised from time to time with a view to removing therefrom the names of :
(a) all such candidates as are not likely to receive appointments before attaining the maximum 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."
8. It is true that no specific time period for wait list is shown in Rule 12 and it only talks 'reasonable dimension' and that it shall be revised from time to time. This Rule came up for consideration before this Court in Ram Babu and another Vs. District Judge, Banda, 1996 AWC 516. This Court considered Rule 12 of Rules, 1955, and observed that terms 'reasonable dimension' and 'revision from time to time' must be treated to mean that 'list' should not be twice the number of vacancy and should not last for more than one year.
9. Considering the nature of wait list Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Madan Mohan Singh, 1994 (Supp-3) SC 30 and Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K TC, (1995) 1 SCR 908, held that select list should not be perennial in nature and ought not be used for future vacancies, which takes away chances of candidates who become eligible subsequently for being considered for such future vacancies.
10. In Pradip Gogoi and others Vs. State of Assam and others, (1998) 8 SCC 726, Court held that preparation of wait list should not become a spinning ground for corruption and denial of constitutional right to equality to eligible candidates awaiting recruitment. It should not become endemic spectacle to witness.
11. Rule 12 was again considered by this Court in Murari Lal Pandey Vs. District Judge and Others, 2006 (5) AWC 4763 and it held as under :
"21. A fair and reasonable interpretation of Rule 12, in the light of the aforesaid judgment is that the wait list should not be drawn for more than twice the number of anticipated vacancies in the recruitment year, and should come to an end as soon as the last vacancy on the date of advertisement is filled up. It is always open to the District Judge to anticipate the vacancies due to superannuation or likely promotions, but having determined number of vacancies, for which the advertisement is made, and drawing a wait list of equal number of candidates, he is not permitted under the Rules to go on appointing persons from the wait list on unanticipated vacancies. Any other interpretation will only give rise to serious irregularities, as in the present case, and will also violate the rights of those persons, who become eligible in the meantime for being considered for such vacancies in future."
12. Learned Single Judge has referred to judgment of Ram Babu's case (Supra) and other decision of Muqeem Ahmad and others Vs. District Judge, Sultanpur, 1999 (1) AWC 748 which are consistent to law laid down by Supreme Court in respect to candidates of wait list and also that future vacancies which did not exist on the date of recruitment and which were not taken into consideration, shall not be filled in by earlier select list. We find no reason to take a different view in the matter.
13. Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.1.2018 A. Verma