Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19196 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar And Others Respondent :- Judgeship Of Mainpuri Through Senior Admn Officdr And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K. Ajit,Arvind Srivastava Iii,V.K.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Bushra Mariam,Sameer Sharma
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is filed by seven petitioners challenging the appointments made in District Judgeship at Mainpuri pursuant to Advertisement No. 2 of 2009. Appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 25 is consequently challenged. It is stated that the appointment itself has not been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and various relatives of existing employees of district judgeship have been adjusted.
A counter affidavit has been filed denying such allegations, in reply to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Mishra for the respondents and perused the materials on record.
The first ground of challenge to the recruitment is that 24 posts were advertised and since the number of applicants were in thousands, as such, a written examination ought to have been conducted, which was not held. It is also urged that holding of Interview for such large number of persons shows that selections were predetermined and the proceedings were shame.
With reference to Annexure RA-2, it is pointed out that the Interview continued for 12 days from 9 am to 6 pm, in which 3279 persons participated. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that such exercise shows lack of transparency. It is also stated that the senior most judicial officer was ignored and the next senior judicial officer was appointed to head the selection committee. It is also urged that one Maya Shankar was O.B.C. candidate, but he has been appointed against the vacancy meant for Scheduled Caste Candidate. It is also alleged that number of persons selected were relatives of the existing staff of the District Court.
In the counter affidavit the aforesaid averments have been denied. So far as the appointment of senior most judicial officer to chair the selection committee is concerned, no provision of law is shown which mandates the senior most judicial officer in the district alone to head the chair. It is also stated that second senior most Additional District Judge and another Additional District Judge, SC/ST Court were part of the selection committee.
So far as procedure for appointment to Class IV post in District Judgeship is concerned, the relevant Rules at that point of time were the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955, in which Class IV posts were to be filled by direct recruitment on the discretion of the District Judge and no specific procedure was laid down. Waiting list was also to be prepared at the discretion of the District Judge.
The rules have since been substituted by 2013 Rules to provide for an elaborate procedure. The substituted procedure since has no retrospective application, therefore, the appointments made prior would not be governed by the Rules of 2013. In the absence of any specific procedure laid down in the rules, the District Judge cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in constituting a selection committee of judicial officers and to conduct interview for appointment to the posts in question. It is also to be borne in mind that these persons were appointed and are working for the last 11 years. Unless the appointment is shown to be violative of any statutory rule or otherwise wholly arbitrary, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with it.
So far as the engagements of relatives of employees of District Judgeship are concerned, in the counter affidavit it is stated that out of 24 appointees only four were related to the existing employees of the District Court. Relatives of District Court employees could have applied and in case if they have been selected then there appointment cannot be questioned only on the ground that their relatives are already in employment in the District Judgeship. Even otherwise 20 out of 24 persons were not the relatives of existing staff of the District Court.
So far as the appointment of Maya Shankar is concerned, it is clearly stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and his caste certificate is on record. No material has otherwise been annexed alongwith the petition to show that Maya Shankar belongs to OBC category. The allegations made in the writ petition are emphatically denied in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, no occasion arises for this Court to interfere with the appointment made in the District Judgeship, Mainpuri in 2010.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Ranjeet Sahu