Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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