JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. The petitioner, who was engaged on an ad hoc basis as a Computer Operator for a period of 6 months in the year 2002, has been successful in continuing in such short spells since then, till the impugned order dated 25.2.2006 communicated the order of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, refusing to accord sanction for the extension of the petitioner's appointment and such similarly situated employees. The said refusal is contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition, which has been impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that the order of the Administrative Judge is without jurisdiction; that the order impugned is in contravention of the Circular of the High Court dated 27.5.1992; that the petitioner is nowhere at fault for non-compliance of the directions contained in the communication dated 24.9.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition); and finally that the services of the petitioner are still required as the posts are still available.
2. Sri G.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has produced the copies of the letters issued by this Court granting extension to the tenure of the petitioner for a period of 6 months from time to time, and the last extension, which was sanctioned, was vide order dated 2.4.2005 up to 6.8.2005. The learned District Judge, Moradabad, has thereafter written letters to this Court requesting for further extension and in his letter dated 28.7.2005 he has stated that there is a requirement of both the employees including the petitioner. The District Judge sent another reminder on 23.11.2005 to this Court for permission for the extension of the service of the petitioner and another employee of the same category upon which the District Judge was communicated the decision impugned in the present writ petition.
3. The Apex Court and this Court has been, time and again, rendering judgments deprecating the continuance of adhocism in the matters of appointment where regular posts are available. Not only this, the system of ad hoc appointments de horse the Rules under the garb of exigency have also been deprecated and it has been held that such a situation should be avoided and not perpetuated. The present case is a clear example of the perpetuation of ad hoc continuance in spite of a clear direction of this Court for making regular appointments forthwith as is evident from the letter dated 24.9.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). It appears that keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge passed the orders which is impugned in the present writ petition.
4. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has to be considered. Sri Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court reported in Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1977 NOC 279 (ALL) FB. He has urged that in view of the powers conferred on the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 4 (Heading-A), it is only the Hon'ble Chief Justice who could have refused extension as the Circular dated 27.5.1992 clearly mandates that no ad hoc appointment against class III posts in the office of subordinate court be made without prior approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Sri Srivastava contends that it is only the Hon'ble Chief Justice who is the repository of all powers and that the Hon'ble Administrative Judge had no authority to refuse extension of services of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is "coram non-judice".
5. On the other hand Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the respondent, has invited the attention of the Court to 2 decisions wherein the issue of the powers of an Administrative Judge and also of the High Court have been discussed keeping in view the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The first decision is in the case of V.K. Verma and Ors. v. The High Court at Lucknow Bench through Registrar General and Ors. Writ Petition No. 1182 of 2004, decided on 28.1.2005. The said judgment is in respect of cancellation of a select list, the orders whereof were passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Pratapgrah, and it was categorically held that powers of the Administrative Judge as contained under Rule 4-B of Chapter III of the Allahabad High Court Rules were extensive enough in order to regulate the functioning of the Officers of the subordinate courts including the District Judge. The findings given are in detail as would be evident from the perusal of the said judgment.
6. The next decision is that of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat v. Ratnesh Kumar and Anr. 2005 ALJ 1206. This was a case where the functioning of Stenographers in the district Court of Baghpat was reported to be much below the required standard and further that some of the candidates did not even know shorthand and typing. Upon a report from the District Judge, the then Acting Chief Justice directed the matter to be considered by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge where after the District Judge was directed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge to take appropriate action in the matter. The District Judge in compliance of the orders of Hon'ble Administrative Judge terminated the services of such inefficient employee who approached this Court by filing a writ petition. They were favoured with an interim order against which the District & Sessions Judge preferred a Special Appeal wherein the decision was rendered by this Court referred to herein above. The question raised was about the power of the High Court to exercise complete administrative control over the subordinate court. The issue was discussed in detail in paragraph No. 42 onwards therein.
7. The aforesaid 2 decisions, therefore, sufficiently acknowledge the powers of an administrative Judge on the administrative side to issue directions in order to regulate and control the action of the Officers of the subordinate court. In the instant case, the District Judge, Moradabad, had sought sanction for extension and which was placed before the Administrative Judge, who refused to grant the sanction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended, that with the experience that the petitioner had gained on account of his ad hoc continuance, he should be considered to be engaged on the post in question even on regular basis. Such a contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that regular appointments have to be made in accordance with rules and it is open for any such candidate who is qualified and eligible under the Rules to apply as and when the vacancy is advertised. No Rules have been pointed out which may confer the benefit of any such preference being claimed by the petitioner. The argument, if accepted, would clearly violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that there is no fault of the petitioner and. therefore, he deserves to be continued keeping in view the vacancy available as also the requirement of the work, cannot be a ground to strike down the order refusing to grant extension. As a matter of fact, it appears that regular selections, which could have been held, have been postponed for no apparent valid reason. It is unfortunate that in spite of a clear direction of this Court on 24.9.2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), no regular appointment appears to have been made and extensions were awarded completely over looking the same and the ad hoc arrangement was being perpetuated for no cogent reason.
8. In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn, I do not find any error much less a jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Apart from this, interfering with the impugned order, would amount to perpetuating adhocism which would be contrary to the directions of the Court contained in the letter dated 24.9.2004. In the event the District Judge, Moradabad, was of the opinion that there was a requirement of a computer operator then in that event he should have sought permission to proceed to make regular appointments in terms of the letter of the High Court dated 24.9.2004. The continuance of the ad hoc appointment, in these circumstances, does not appear to be justified at all and, therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge is sustainable on all scores.
9. So far as the request of the petitioner to continue him till regular selections are made is concerned, suffice is to say that the same is subject to any orders being passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of the powers contained in Rule 4(A) of Chapter III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The request of the petitioner for continuing on ad hoc basis, therefore, can only he a matter of consideration by Hon'ble the Chief Justice that too even in case there still exists the requirement of such ad hoe employees, coupled with the fact that the same would be available only till regular selections are made.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.