An advertisement was published by the District Judge, Farrukhabad for making appointments on various posts including the posts of Class-IV employee. A select list was prepared. The petitioners before this Court, who are six in number, were empanelled at serial nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, 18 and 20 respectively.
According to the petitioners, candidates at serial no. 1 to 4 were appointed on 28.07.1998, candidate at serial no. 5 was appointed on 12.08.1998, candidate at serial no. 7 was appointed on 16.12.2000 and the candidate at serial no. 8 was appointed on 18.12.2000.
According to the petitioners the select list itself was cancelled on 04.12.2000. Even thereafter appointment of candidates at serial nos. 7 and 8 was made. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is stated that in the month of January, 2001 three other persons were appointed as Class-IV employee.
On these allegations the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.12.2000 canceling the select list as well as a mandamus directing respondents to offer appointment to the petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as many as 16 vacancies were advertised and therefore the petitioners, who were within the first 16 in the merit list, were entitled to appointment. He further submits that the appointments were offered illegally to three candidates in the month of January, 2001, as their names were not included in the select list prepared for the posts in question.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Judge and it has been stated that 7 permanent vacancies of Class-IV posts were advertised and in respect of other 9 Class-IV vacancies it was specifically mentioned that the same are reserved for retrenched employees only. It is then stated that the candidates from serial nos. 1 to 8 have been appointed against substantive vacancies strictly in order of merit. Candidate at serial no. 6 has not been appointed. Petitioners are lower in merit than the appointed candidates. The select list exhausted itself with the appointment against the advertised vacancies. The petitioners have no claim for any appointment.
So far as candidates appointed on 16th and 18th December, 2000 are concerned, it has been explained that there was some discrepancy in the roster prepared and after necessary corrections the orders for appointment of candidates at serial nos. 7 and 8 were issued. It has been stated that the petitioners did not belong to reserved category.
So far as the candidates appointed in the month of January, 2001 are concerned, it is stated that they have not been appointed by way of direct recruitment. They were promoted from the post of Chowkidar, Mali to the post of Process Server. The petitioners can have no claim in respect of such promotion.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records.
The advertisement, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, specifically mentions that there are 7 vacancies of Class-IV employee on the regular side and there are 9 vacancies of Class-IV employees which are reserved for appointment of retrenched employees. Admittedly, as against 7 regular vacancies, candidates strictly in accordance with merit list have been appointed. Petitioners are lower in merit viz-a-viz all the seven candidates appointed. With the appointment of 7 candidates against regular vacancies, the select list preprepared for the purpose lost its life. The same was rightly cancelled under the order dated 04th December, 2000. The controversy in that regard stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Ray and others vs. High Court of Delhi and others; (2010) 2 SCC 637.
So far as the vacancies reserved for retrenched employees are concerned, the petitioners can have no claim as they do not belong to said category. With regard to the appointments offered by way of promotion from the post of Chowkidar and Mali to that of Process Server to the persons named in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners not being employee of judgeship cannot object to such promotion.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners can be issued.
Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suvidya Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others;.(2002) 10 SCC 269 and Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana and another; (2002) 10 SCC 549.
The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case, as it has already been recorded that all the advertised vacancy within the category against which the petitioners had applied, had been filled by the candidates more meritorious to the petitioners.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.3.2011 Pkb/