JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
2. The petitioner claims to be a recognized association of Ministerial Employees, of Collectorate of U.P. and feels aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition which was filed seeking a relief requiring the respondents not to fill up the vacancies in the post of Naib Tehsildars to the extent of 10% of total strength from any other source except from the members of the Association. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to enforce the order of the State Government dated 26/31.12.1956 and make necessary provision in the Rules for the implementation of the said Government Order.
3. It may be noticed that the Chief Secretary of Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued as Circular dated 26/31.12.1956 on the subject of reorganization of the staff of the Collectorate. At the very out set, in the aforesaid Circular it was provided that unless specifically mentioned otherwise in the appendices the order issued vide the GO will come into force with effect from January 1, 1957. The provision contained in the Appendix "S" of the aforesaid Government Order/Circular, which is sought to be relied upon by the appellant was to the following effect:
(5) "Clerks of Collectorates who are below 40 and have worked either as Amins, Nazirs, Naib Nazirs or as temporary Naib Tahsildars will be eligible for promotion to the posts of Naib Tahsildars and 10 percent of the vacancies among Naib Tahsildars will be reserved for them."
4. It may also be noticed that the Appointing Authority for the Naib Tahsildar, i.e., Board of Revenue issued a letter dated 28,3.1992 clarifying the position that the Government Order/Circular dated 26/31.12.1956 had not been implemented and even m the statutory Rules regulating the recruitment of the Naib Tahsildars, no provision had been made for reservation of 10% of the vacancies requiring them to be filled up taking recourse to the method of promotion from the clerical staff working in the Collectorates.
5. The learned Single Judge after carefully considering the evidence and the material brought on the record and the statutory provisions contained in the Naib Tahsildars Rules and specially the fact that the State Government had not chosen to implement the Government Order dated 26/31.12; 1956 and further that the legislative intent underlying the statutory Rules was to the effect that the employees of the Collectorates in the clerical cadre were not entitled to any reservation to the extent of 10% as sought for, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner's claim was not tenable in law,
6. The learned Single Judge was further of the view that since the aforesaid Government Order had not been enforced for a considerable period of four decades, no justifiable ground could be said to have been made out for issuing any direction for its enforcement as the aforesaid Government Order had to be taken to be a dead letter incapable of being enforced.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the Government Order ought to have been implemented and in the circumstances of the case a direction as prayed for requiring making of the necessary provisions in the Rules for implementation of the Government Order dated 26/31.12.1956 ought to have been issued.-
8. We have considered the aforesaid submission.
We are clearly of the view that the statutory Rules regulating the recruitment and appointment on the post of Naib Tehsildar having been framed and published, their efficiency and the polity running thereunder cannot be scanned by this Court.
9. It may, however, be emphasised that this Court can always examine the lawfulness of the Rules. But in the present case, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any such legal infirmity in the aforesaid Rules, which may justify an interference therein.
10. We are further clearly of the view that the field of operation of the Government Order sought to be relied upon relates to a mode of filling up a vacancy in the post of Naib Tehsildar, stands covered by the statutory Rules and in that view of the. matter, the aforesaid Government Order which even otherwise remained a dead letter cannot be taken to have any effect of superceding the Rules which are statutory in nature.
11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record, we are not satisfied that any justifiable ground can be said to have been made out for any interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. This intra Court Special Appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.