May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

52
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
No. 1,2 and 3 in the list. There is no
arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents on
this score No case of arbitrary action by
concerned authority is made out. Petitioners
then contend that then names are not being
ignored arbitrarily for no valid cause.
8. Copy of the Government Order dated
4.10.94 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the
Respondents’ Counter Affidavit. The said
Government order does not re quire
cancelling of the statutory eligibility list as
contemplated under aforementioned Rule,
1958. No subsequent Government order or
amendment of Rule has been p laced on
record on behalf of the Respondent to indicate
that the list became non existent on expiry of
certain period. Rules 1958 also do not
contemplate that list will become non-existent
on expiry of a certain period.
9. There is no logical explanation or
material to justify for not making promotion
from the eligibility list. More so, when it is
not the stand of the Respondents that posts of
Assistant Registrar Kanoongo had not fallen
vacant and were/are not available.
10. The statutory eligibility list prepared
cannot be given goodbye b ‘Executive
Instruction’ as has been sought to be done in
the present case by placing reliance upon
Government Order dated 17.6.94 and Board
of Revenue order dated 4..10.1994 referred to
in the impugned order dated 26.7.1992
(Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) If such a
situation is allowed to prevail or perpetuate, it
would encourage Respondents and its
authorities to make appointment of their
choice one, according to merit but ignore
others who may not be for reasons (non
conducive and relevant for the purpose) in
good book of these authorities.
11. Secondly, Respondents cannot be
permitted to avoid or escape the statutory
Rules and from accepting the eligibility list
and give effect to the same provided posts of
Assistant Registrar Kanoongo are available.
12. No appointment from outside the list,
in the past (or in future), could /can be made
unless list stood exhausted (after eliminating
over age etc.) As otherwise there is no
purpose in preparing the list or having the
Rules 1958. It gives scope for arbitrary pick
and choose may be eliminating those lower in
merit-and subsequently opening flood gate for
back door entry-like Daily Wager, Muster
Roll, StopGap Adhoc, and purely Temporary
Officiating work charge etc. See 1997 (3)
Education & Service cases 1579.
13. Petitioners and all similarly situated
persons n the eligibility list shall be entitled to
similar treatment as the Petitioners and they
shall all be given seniority above all who have
been appointed from outside the list against
vacancies which existed when list was
prepared or thereafter and said tenure shall be
reckoned for post retrial benefit if it becomes
relevant. They shall not, however, be entitled
to the difference of pay, if any, for non
working period on the post of Asstt. Registrar
Kanoongo.
14. Order dated 26 th July, 1997 (Annexure-
2 to the Writ Petition) is quashed and
respondent no. 1 and concerned authorities are
directed to make appointment n accordance
with Statutory Rules against the vacant posts
of Asstt. Registrar Kanoogo, which were
existing when eligibility list was prepared and
those which came into existence thereafter
unless the said list s being exhausted (deleting
the names under Rules 1958 and particularly
Rule 9 (3) of said Rules 1958) in accordance
with the merit of the list in question.
Within three weeks from the date of
receiving of a certified copy of this order
before Respondent nos. 1 and 5 the competent
authority shall ensure to process compliance
of this Judgment.