Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of any material on record to indicate that the advertisement that had been issued on 18th June, 2005 related to the post of Process Server mentioned in Rule 4(2), the waiting list should not be confined to the posts mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Rules and, therefore, if the waiting list had not been cancelled by the order dated 26th May, 2006, the appointments of Chowkidars that had been made in July, 2006 should have been made from the persons whose names figured in the waiting list and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could not have been appointed. He further contended that even if it be assumed that the earlier advertisement did not relate to the post of Chowkidars then too the appointment of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as Chowkidars was liable to be cancelled as it had been made without issuing any advertisement for filling in the said posts.

11. Though there is nothing on the record to indicate that the advertisement that had been issued on 18th June, 2005 was confined to the posts mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Rules and nor has any document been brought on record to indicate that the three candidates from the list had been appointed on any post mentioned in Rule 4(2) of the Rules but a perusal of 4(2) and Rule 12 of the Rules clearly shows that the waiting list of the candidates is to be prepared for each Judgeship for the posts of Process Servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrsashes and no waiting list shall be maintained for Chowkidars, Malies, Sweepers and Watermen. Such being the position, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the waiting list declared on 21st July, 2005 related to the posts mentioned in Rule 4(2) and the appointments of Chowkidars could not have been made from the said waiting list deserves to be accepted. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the waiting list dated 21st July, 2005 had been cancelled in an arbitrary manner by the District Judge by his order dated 26th May, 2006 as learned Counsel for the the petitioner did not place any material to show that any vacancy to the posts enumerated in Rule 4(2) came into existence during this period.