Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1004 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the District Judge, Mahoba .

3) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are:

(a) An advertisement was issued by the Office of District Judge, Mahoba on 17.08.2000 inviting applications for appointment of Class IV posts of Process Server, Orderly, Peon and Farrash in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/- in District Judgeship, Mahoba mentioning that the selections are to be made for the purposes of preparation of a wait list. The advertisement did not mention the details or number of posts for which the advertisement was issued.

In pursuance of the order dated 08.08.2007, the District Judge, Mahoba informed the appellants by letter dated 12.11.2007 that their services came to an end with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave petition.

4) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5) The advertisement was issued on 17.08.2000 by District Judge, Mahoba inviting applications for selection and appointment on Class IV posts of Process Server, Orderly, Peon and Farrash. In response to the said advertisement, the appellants applied and on 19.09.2000 results were published and they were included in the select list. All the appellants were given appointment on 13.08.2001. It is the claim of the appellants that all the appointments were made on substantive vacancies. It is the grievance of the appellants that without any show cause notice, by order dated 19.09.2003, their appointments have been converted into ad hoc appointment. The appellants also pointed out that the Rules nowhere provides that the regular appointments can be converted into ad hoc appointments, hence, the order passed by the District Judge, Mahoba, terminating their services cannot be sustained and the same was wrongly approved by the High Court. The appellants have asserted that they were appointed by order dated 13.08.2001 i.e. within one year of their selection by select list dated 19.09.2000, as such, the grounds mentioned in the order dated 19.09.2003 cannot be sustained and the service of the appellants has to be treated as regular service and no adverse order can be passed against them.

7) In order to consider the rival claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions from the Rules:-

Rule 2 (f) defines "Waiting List" as the list of candidates approved under the rules, for appointment to the various posts in the establishment.
Rule 4(2) of the Rules lays down the method of recruitment for Process Servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrashes and reads thus:
"Rule 4. Method of recruitment.--Recruitment to the following posts in the establishment shall be made-- (1).....
(2) 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.
(3) ....."

As per Rule 5, all appointments to the establishment in a Judgeship shall be made by the District Judge. Rule 12 is very relevant for our purpose 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 maintaind for chaukidars, malis, sweepers and waterman.