JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. The petitioners who are 18 in number in the present two writ petitions, alongwith others had appeared in regular selection for the recruitment to Class III post in the Judgeship of Fatehpur. The recruitment was held in accordance with the provisions of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1947) as well as the Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, 1950. A select list of the approved candidates for the year 1991 was prepared and approved by the then District Judge on l9-1-1991. The names of all the 18 petitioners find place in the said approved list, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petitions. The candidates listed at S1. Nos. 1 to 16 have already been appointed against various vacancies which occurred in Fatehpur Judgeship and some of them have been transferred to other districts.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been offered temporary appointment on different dates in the year 1991 in leave vacancies and have worked from time to time, as and when vacancies arose, till November, 1994. Since then the petitioners are out of employment. It is alleged that a number of vacancies are in existence in Fatehpur Judgeship but the petitioners are not being appointed and instead a fresh recruitment has been notified. According to the petitioners, the life of the approved select list has been extended by the High Court which issued a circular letter on the administrative side on 28-7-1994, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The said circular was however, later on, withdrawn by the High Court by its letter dated 24-8-1994, which is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition,
3. With regard to the appointment of the candidates appearing in the select list of the year 1991. District Judge, Fatehpur sought clarification/guidelines from the High Court by addressing letter dated 1-2-1995, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. A reply was sent on 7-6-1996 vide Annexure A-9, to the District Judge that the appointment be made in accordance with the guidelines issued by the High Court. In the letter dated 24th May, 1996, which is contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition, it was also intimated to the District Judge by this Court, on its administrative side, that in view of the proposed amendment in the Rules of 1947, no recruitment to class I post shall be held by the District Judge. The petitioners, frustrated as they were, approached the Apex Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 827 of 1996, which was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioners would take recourse to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. At the time when both these petitions were filed, there were said to be 14 vacancies in Class III cadre in the Fatehpur Judgeship. The petitioners maintained that in view of the provisions of Rule 14 (3), and proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of 1947, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed against existing vacancies.
5. By means of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be commanded to absorb them on the post of Class III cadre, in the ministerial staff of District Judgeship, Fatehpur against available vacancies and that a direction may further be issued to the respondents not to fill up the vacancies by any other means except by absorbing the petitioners against the existing vacancies.
6. Counter rejoinder, and supplementary affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is alleged than the select list of the year 1991 has lapsed on the expiry of the period of one year as prescribed under the rules and that the appointment of the petitioners against short term leave vacancies does not give them a right to claim regular appointment. It is maintained that the petitioners have, of necessity, to appear in the recruitment test which is being held under the guidelines issued by this Court provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria.
7. Heard S/Sri R.B. Sahai, H.N. Singh and DP. Singh, learned counsel for he petitioners and Sri Sunil Ambwani on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1, at considerable length. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in both these petitions, they are being decided by this judgment,
8. It is an indubitable fact all the 18 petitioners were duly selected for appointment for Class III cadre of Fatehpur Judgeship in the year 1991. They are positioned in the select list, Annexure-1, at different serial numbers from 17 to 44. It is also an admitted fact that the candidates whose names appear from serial numbers 1 to 16 in the select list have been given regular appointment and are working as such. All the 18 petitioners were given short term appointments at intervals during the period January, 1991 to November, 1994. For example, petitioner No. 1, Deependra Kumar Srivastava had worked during the following periods:
9. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners have been given appointment within a period of one year when the select list was in operation, a vested right had accrued in their favour to claim appointment against future vacancies. Emphatic reliance has been placed on the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1947. Rule 14 provides for the registration of the selected candidates. In sub-rule (3) it is provided :
"(3) If any such candidate has not been given an appointment (offered in strict order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under sub-rule (1) within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates and he must then take his chance with others for recruitment again in a subsequent year."
Rule 15 deals with the appointment to ministerial establishment to be made by the District Judge from amongst the candidates recruited under Rule 11 in order of merits. The second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 runs as under:
"15..........Provided also that nothing in these rules shall operate to the disadvantage of any person on the approved list of candidates who have already got an officiating chance and not otherwise disqualified at the time these rules come into force, whether such person has in fact been appointed or not."
10. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on Rule 16 which makes a provision for the retention of selected candidates of approved list. This rule provides that if a selected candidate has once received an appointment and his work has given satisfaction, his name shall not be removed from the register of recruited candidates in the event of his reversion. At the outset, it may be mentioned that Rule 16 would not apply to the case of the candidates directly recruited to class III cadre for one simple reason that no person who has been directly recruited may be reverted to a post inferior to class III Cadre. The post, which is inferior to the class III cadre is of class IV cadre, such as, Peon, Orderly, Daftari, Sweeper etc. A person, who has been directly selected for appointment to class HI cadre, cannot be reverted to class IV cadre. In this view of the matter, a reference to the provisions of Rule 16 is otiose. This rule applies to those class IV employees, who have been promoted to the class III cadre. If a class IV employee who has been promoted to Class III cadre, faces reversion on account of exigencies of service, it is his name, which shall not be removed from the register of recruited candidates of class III cadre.
11. There is also no dispute about the fact that the life of the select list is only one year. On the expiry of the period of one year, the select list which was approved on 19-1-1991 shall automatically lapse and no candidate who has not been given regular appointment shall be entitled to assert his claim for appointment after the expiry of the period of one year. Earlier there was a controversy about the duration life of the select list. The controversy has been finally set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1037 : 1996 (2) LBESR 437 (All) (FB). It was held that the period of recruitment or the list is one year as contemplated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14. All the vacancies had to be filled up within one year from the first list.
12. The only moot point for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioners can stake their claim for appointment on the basis of their engagement on different dates from time to time in leave vacancies. It was urged that the rules are not supposed to operate to the disadvantage of any person on the approved list of the candidates who have already got an officiating chance and not otherwise disqualified, whether such person has, in fact, been appointed or not Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that a bare reading of second proviso to Rule 15 (2) would reveal that even when officiating chance is given for a short period, that would ensure to the benefit of the candidate to seek appointment in future and he would not be adversely affected due to what is contained in Rule 14 (3)" In support of this contention, a reference was made to the case of Satender Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. District Judge, Ghazipur, (1987) 1 UPLBEC 56, and it was pointed out that earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 11893 of 1983, Vijay Bahadur Yadav and Anr. v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors. and other connected writ petitions, is clearly distinguishable. A reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Prasad Shukla and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1043. On the strength of the above decisions, it was emphatically maintained that the petitioners have not forfeited their right to get appointment against the future vacancies even though one year's life of the select list has come to an end as they were successful in getting appointment during the period the select list was in operation.
13. Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the short term engagement of the petitioners against casual leave vacancies which may have been manipulated to create a right in the petitioners to seek appointment at a future date, does not confer any right on them to seek regular appointment. Repelling the various submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambwani reiterated that since the life of the select list has come to an end, the petitioners cannot be appointed on class III posts as their names stand automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates, as contemplated in Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of 1947.
14. I have given thoughful consideration to the matter and find that a complete answer to the various submissions made on behalf of the petitioners furnished by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Devendra Nath Srivastava (supra). The earlier cases on the point are no longer a good law. The direct authority of the Full Bench of this Court cannot be ignored. The Full Bench has considered the impact of Rule 14 (3) as well as Proviso to Rule 15 (2) and it has been authoritatively held that second proviso to Rule 15 (2) cannot be taken to have enlarged the period of one year as provided under Rule 14 (3). It was ruled that what the appointing authority cannot do directly under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14. It cannot do by making appointment after expiry of the period of one year under the second proviso to Rule 15 (2). The Full Bench observed thus :
".........This provision is only an exception to the person who has been already working in any capacity in the ministerial establishment and has been given officiating chance to the post on which he had been selected and his name finds place in the select list, he may be permitted to continue on the said post. This proviso does not contemplate any appointment made on ad hoc basis on the basis of select list prepared under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules."
In para 29 of the report, the Full Bench observed as follows :
".........It may further be noticed that second proviso to Rule 15 (2) lays down two conditions-firstly, that the person has already got an officiating chance and secondly, he is not otherwise disqualified at the time the Rules came into force. This proviso is applicable in a situation when this Rule came into force. It contemplates situation that those persons who had been working on officiating capacity and were also on the approved select list and were qualified at the time the Rule came into force, may be permitted to continue on the post. It does not contemplate the situation that in future whenever the select list is prepared after the enforcement of the Rules, if a persons gets an officiating change after expiry of one year, he shall be permanently absorbed in the service on the basis of select list. Rule 14 (3) contemplates that the vacancy is to be filled within a year and a person on the select list does not get chance for appointment. He is to appear again for selection. It is with a view that in the next selection better candidates may be available. If the intention of the legislature would have been that the same list would continue it would have made the provision that till the list is exhausted no fresh selection shall take place."
15. There is doubt about the fact that the petitioners have worked in short term leave vacancies. Their appointments cannot be termed to be officiating. The Full Bench has taken the view that appointment give on ad hoc basis for short term periods cannot be said to be made on regular basis and such appointees cannot claim appointment on substantive basis on the strength of such short term appointments. In paragraph 30 of the report, the Full Bench observed that "we are, however, unable to accept the view that the appointing authority has a right to make ad hoc appointment authority after expiry of one year of the select list as contemplated under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules and such person will get a right to continue on the post on the basis of the proviso to Rule 15 (2).
16. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Devendra Nath Srivastava's case (supra), the petitioners have absolutely no case for appointment on the strength of the fact that they were given short term appointments during the period the select list was in force and thereafter, The select list ceased to exist automatically on the expiry of the period of one year, i.e., in January, 1992 and in view of the discussion above, the petitioners are not entitled to claim appointment on the basis of the fact that they were appointed during short intervals in patches against the leave vacancies as these appointments would not ensure to the benefit of the petitioners as they are outside the scope and ambit of the second proviso of Rule 15 (2).
17. Both on factual and legal matrix, the writ petitions are devoid of any merits. They are accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Writ Petitions dismissed.