Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In writ petition No. 24298 of 2003, the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar in the judgship on ad hoc basis has sought for quashing the identical order dated 2.5.2003, and for consequential reliefs.

4. The facts as set out in the writ petition are that an advertisement was displayed by the District Judge, Baghpat on the notice board for filling up the vacancies of Class IV employees in the judge ship. The petitioners applied, appeared and participated in the selection proceedings and were selected for appointment on the post of Class-IV employees in accordance with U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 ( In short the Rules of 1955). The appointment letters were issued to the petitioners 1 & 2 on 16.4.2003, and to petitioner No. 3 on 28.4.2003, and the petitioners were allowed to join. The petitioner in writ petition No. 24298 of 2003, was working as an ad hoc employee since 5.2.2003, on a fixed salary of Rs. 780/- per month. He also applied and appeared in the selections, advertised on the notice board, and was appointed as Chowkidar in the regular pay scale on 1.5.2003. started working. By the impugned order dated 2.5.2003, the services of all the petitioners were dispensed with, In the counter affidavit of Sri Het Ram, Additional District Judge, Baghpat, it is stated that the in writ petition No. 24665 of 2003, the petitioner no 1 was appointed on 10.4.2003, the petitioner No. 2 on 16.4.2003 and petitioner No. 3 on 28.4.2003. All these appointments were made by the then District Judge in the month of April, 2003 which was the last month of his service before his superannuation. 'There were a number of complaints against him, which were in the knowledge of the then Hon'ble Administrative Judge, who had restrained the District Judge from making any appointment in any category. The Administrative Judge had received complaints against District Judge for exceeding his powers and receiving illegal gratification in giving undue favours to some persons in appointment. He restrained him by circular letter dated 22.4.2003 and further through D.O. letter of the Registrar General dated 28.4.2003 from making any appointment. The vacancies were never advertised nor pasted on the notice board. The petitioners were not appointed by following any selection procedure. In fact there was no vacancy of Chawkidar in the Judge-ship on 16.4.2003. There are only three sanctioned posts of Chaukidar against which Rameshwar Dayal, Sheo Prasad and Sunil Kumar Misra were already appointed. These persons were never appointed on the post of Process Server/Office Peon/Furrash even by way of transfer under Rule 4(2)(B) of the Rules of 1955. Their deputation, if any, on the post of Process Server/Office Peon did not cause any vacancy for making any fresh appointment. In the counter affidavit it is denied that any selection procedure was adopted. The petitioners made applications for appointment on 9.4.2003, 10.4.2003 and 26.4.2003 and were appointed by the District Judge. The then District Judge had adopted illegal and suspicious approach in the appointment. He had manipulated the report from Central Nazir and the official Incharge Nazarat at the time of appointment with ulterior motive as there were no vacancies on post of Chowkidar. It was not necessary to give them any prior notice as their appointment's were subject to the condition that it may be terminated at any time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the report of Central Nazir, there were clear vacancies. The petitioners were appointed after selection. Their services could not be dispensed with only on suspicion without following the rules for termination of temporary Government Servants. The establishment of the High Court did not conduct any enquiry against the District Judge, and that he has been blamed only to justify the orders terminating the petitioners services.

The recruitment of Class IV employees is regulated by the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in consultation with the High Court. The District Judge is the appointing authority of all the class III and IV posts in the establishment. Rule 4 provides for method of recruitment to the different category of posts. The Chowkidars, Malies, Waterman and Sweeper may be appointed under Sub Rule (4) by direct recruitment at the discretion of the District Judge. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 4 provide for appointment of Process Server, Orderly Peon, Office Peon and Farrash by appointment of candidates on the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 . The post of Daftaries and Bundle Lifters are promotional post and may be filed under sub Rule (1) of Rule 4 by promotion strictly on merits from amongst the Process Server, Orderly, Office Peons and Farrashes, who have put in at least five years service as such. Rule 12 provides for preparation of waiting list to be maintained in each Judgeship for the post of Process Server, Orderly, Office Peon and Farrash. Rules 4 and 12 of the Rules of 1955 are reproduced as below:

(2) Process servers, orderly peons, office peons and famishes.- (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) chowkidars, malies, waterman and sweepers.-By direct recruitment on the discretion of District Judge.

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 famishes.

There are only three sanctioned posts of Chawkidar's in the Judgship at Baghpat. The persons appointed substantively on these posts were not transferred to the post of process servers, or office peons, which fall in a different category. No order with regard to these transfers were made by the District Judge under Rule 17(2)(b) of the Rules of 1955. There is nothing on record to show that these posts were advertised, or that applications were called from the employment exchange. The petitioners have not given the details of the selection procedure, constitution of any Selection Committee, or the number of candidates who may have been considered for appointment along with petitioners. The District Judge was going to retire within a month. He apparently made these appointment at the fag end of his carrier without any available vacancy and following procedure for appointment.