Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order of rejection as passed by the respondents is patently bad in the eyes of law inasmuch as the appointments to be made in the Judgeship are governed by the rules namely the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Rules). Rule 12 of the 1955 Rules categorically provides that a waiting list of candidates shall be maintained for each Judgeship for the posts of Process-servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrashes. The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and be revised from time to time with a view to removing therefrom the names of all such candidates as are not likely to receive appointments before attaining the maximum age prescribed in Rule 8 and such candidates as are found guilty of insubordination, misbehavior or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies, after giving them necessary opportunity to explain their conduct. It is also contended that as there is no time period fixed till which the waiting list shall be operative, consequently till such time the entire waiting list is exhausted, petitioners are entitled for appointment.

11. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is based on the interpretation of Rule 12 of 1955 Rules which pertains to the waiting list as has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad (supra). For the sake of convenience, Rule 12 of the 1955 Rules is reproduced below:-

"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.