JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
1. This writ petition was heard along with Writ Petition No. 42000 of 1999, S. K. Bajpayee v. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
2. The respondent No. 3, the learned District Judge advertised vacancies for recruitment against the posts of Stenographers and other Class III and Class IV posts. After selection in course of said recruitment process, several candidates were given appointment. There were complains against the irregularities and illegalities in the recruitment process. Matter was enquired by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge concerned and the entire recruitment was cancelled upon finding of illegalities in the process of recruitment.
3. As a consequence, the respondent No. 2, learned District Judge cancelled appointment of the candidates against Class III and Class IV posts. In this writ petition, the petitioners are those Class III employees and the petitioners in the said other writ petition heard along with this petition are those Class IV employees.
4. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners contended that once the appointments are given to the petitioners, they became entitled to continue in view of such appointments and their appointments cannot be cancelled without following the principles of natural Justice. Second contention was raised that as in the matter of appointment of petitioners the learned District Judge was the appointing authority. Hon'ble High Court has no role therein. Therefore, cancellation Of appointment of petitioners on the basis of cancellation of the entire selection by the Hon'ble High Court, could not stand as appointing authority's order is mere a follow up action following an order passed by an authority having no jurisdiction in the matter. In support of his contentions, learned counsel referred to law laid down in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 309, Shridhar v. Nagar Palika Jaunpur, AIR 1990 SC 307 ; Basitdeo Tewary v. Sido Kanhu University and others. JT 1998 (6) SC 464 ; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U. P.. (1999) 1 UPLBEC 575 : Anirudhsinghji v. State of Gujarat, JT 1995 (6) SC 146 and judgment dated 15.12.1995 allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30508 of 1991, Vimla Yadav and others v. Chief Development Officer, Basti and others since confirmed by Division Bench of this Court and the Apex Court.
5. Mr. Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the respondents contended that under Article 235 of Constitution of India, the Hon'ble High Court is having general power of superintendence over the District Courts and such power includes taking such steps in respect of any irregularity by learned District Judge including the matter of recruitment. In support of such contention, reference has been made to the case of Amar Singh v. Chief Justice, AIR 1976 P&H 215 and R.W. Gujjar v. State of Gujarat. AIR 1978 Guj 102, both decided by Full Benches. Reference was also made to the case of Rupendra Nath Bagchi v. Chief Justice, AIR 1961 Cal 1, confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Rupendra Nath Bagchi, AIR 1966 SC 447 ; Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, 1993 (1) SCC 154, and the case of Km. Leena Gupta v. Rohilkhand University. (1989) 1 UPLBEC 409.
6. On behalf of respondents, contention was further made that when the entire selection was found irregular or illegal, appointments, if made in terms thereof, are also liable to cease and in such case of general decision, on hearing to individual candidate is required.
7. After considering the aforesaid contentions of the parties and perusing the materials on record, including the records relating to the aforesaid enquiry held by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, which have been made available by the learned counsel for respondents. I find that on certain complaints received, a thorough enquiry was undertaken. Records were inspected. The report of such enquiry clearly narrates extent of irregularities and findings have been arrived at with regard to various nature of irregularities. Neither in the writ petition nor in course of argument, aforesaid enquiry was challenged. Therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to consider validity of the said enquiry.
8. Contentions have been raised strongly by the petitioners that such enquiry by High Court is not permissible when recruitment process was undertaken by the appointing authority, i.e., the District Judge. The provision of Article 235 of Constitution of India and its interpretation in the case of Amar Singh (supra) and R.N. Gujjar (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the control vested in the High Court squarely extends to the Presiding Officers and also to the functionaries and ministerial staff attached to the District Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto. Therefore, contention of the petitioners that power of superintendence of the High Court is only in respect of Judicial officers and it does not relate to Class III and Class IV employees, cannot stand.
9. With regard to other contentions as regards violation of principles of natural justice, law has been referred to at the hearing. Law has also been decided in various cases. Including the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1360 ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 742 ; Ashwini Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1997) 2 SCC 1 and Rajiv Ratnam Tiwari v. State of U. P.. (1997) 3 UPLBEC 2105. I find that irregularities herein were with respect to the recruitment process. The petitioners, being the candidates selected, do not appear to have any thing to show as to validity in respect of such recruitment. One of the grounds for cancellation of recruitment mentioned in the said enquiry report is that application forms filled up by 505 candidates were rejected as the said application forms did not mention the post applied for although prescribed application forms did not instruct the requirement of any indication by the applicants as regards posts. It also appears that advertisement also did not prescribe that requirement. Report has noted that some candidates have been considered and appointed even though their forms did not have such indication as regards post applied for. Total 1,383 forms have been rejected as those forms were incomplete. Candidates were not given any opportunity to furnish such particulars. But instance has been mentioned in the report where deficiency was permitted to be completed by the father of the candidate.
10. The report indicates several other such irregularities, which are of such nature that regarding the same no question arises to give the candidates any opportunity to explain.
11. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the question of giving any opportunity to the candidates could not serve any purpose particularly when the enquiry, its report and decision thereon are not under challenge in the present writ petition.
12. In view of aforesaid findings and law prevailing. I do not find any ground for interference on the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.