IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19046 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 08, 2010. Ashwani Goyal and others .....Petitioners versus District & Sessions Judge, Mansa and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr.R.N.Raina, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.19046 of 2008, 7039 of 2009 and 8526 of 2009, as common issues are involved in all these cases. 2] For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.19046 of 2008. 3] The petitioners seek quashing of the advertisement dated 19.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby applications to fill up 14 posts of clerks have been C.W.P.No . 19046 of 2008 2 invited. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus for directing their appointments against these advertised posts. 4] On 15.3.2008 (Annexure P-1), eight posts of clerks were advertised by the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa. The advertisement also stipulated that “number of posts may increase or decrease”. The petitioners applied in response thereto and appeared in the written test held on 3.6.2008. There were 68 candidates including the petitioners, who qualified the written test and were called to appear in the computer efficiency test held on 5.8.2008 and based thereupon, ten candidates were declared qualified and all of them were given appointments also. 5] Thereafter, the impugned advertisement dated 19.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) came to be issued. The petitioners assert their preferential right to seek appointment against the said advertised posts on the plea that if there were to be a merit list of all the successful candidates, their names would have figured in such list and they being in `waiting list', are entitled to be appointed against the advertised posts as it was imperative upon the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa, to keep the selection list dated 26.8.2008 alive for a period of one year. 6] The District and Sessions Judge, Mansa has filed his reply- affidavit explaining that vide advertisement dated 15.3.2008, only eight posts were advertised but subsequently, the High Court vide memo dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure R-5), sanctioned two more posts and allowed him to fill-up ten posts of Clerks, therefore, ten successful candidates, whose result was declared on 6.8.2008, were given appointment in order of their C.W.P.No . 19046 of 2008 3 merit. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Mansa, has also appended with the reply-affidavit the memo dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure R-6) sent by the High Court, the contents whereof read as follows:- “...... I am directed to refer to your letter No.5533 dated 1.9.2008 on the subject noted above and to inform you that Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges have been pleased to allow you to fill up 10 posts of Clerks by inviting applications as per mode suggested by you. It is further to allow you to fill up 4 posts of Clerks for the Courts of newly recruited Civil Judges (Junior Division), by inviting applications as per mode suggested by you with the direction that they will join their duties when they are required in the Court....” (emphasis applied). 7] It is maintained by respondent No.1 that 14 newly created posts of Clerks have been advertised in compliance to the above reproduced directive dated 19.9.2008. As regards to the petitioners' claim, it is averred that no `waiting list' was prepared or kept alive and the petitioners were at liberty to apply and compete pursuant to the fresh advertisement issued on 19.10.2008. 8] Since the petitioners relied upon Rule 7 (vii) (d) of Vol.II. Chapter 18, Part-A of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, which contains the Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, to contend that it was mandatory for the District and Sessions Judge, Mansa to prepare a selection list and to keep it alive for one year, the High Court C.W.P.No . 19046 of 2008 4 was also impleaded as a party-respondent vide order dated 4.5.2009 and a separate reply dated 31.7.2009 has been filed on its behalf. The High Court has explained that Rule 7 (vii) (d) of Vol.II, Chapter-18, referred to above, does not obligated to prepare any “waiting list” and the reliance placed by the petitioners upon that rule is wholly misconceived. 9] In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be useful to reproduce Rule 7 (vii) (d), relied upon by the petitioners, which reads as follows:- “7 (vi) Clerks: Appointment to the post of Clerk shall be made in the ratio of 90% in case of direct recruitment and 10% by way of promotion. Appointment to the post of Clerk shall be regulated as under:- (a) No candidate for direct recruitment shall be eligible to apply for the post of Clerk unless he holds a degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science or equivalent thereto from a recognized University with Punjabi as one of the subject. (b) Candidates shall have to take a written examination in the following subjects:- Sr.No. Subject Max.Marks Qualifying Marks 1. English Composition 50 33% 2. General Knowledge 50 33% (c) No candidate shall be considered for appointment unless he obtains 40% marks in aggregate in the written examination and qualifies the type test with minimum speed of 30 w.p.m. C.W.P.No . 19046 of 2008 5 (d) Select list of successful candidates in order of merit shall be prepared as a result of competitive examination which shall remain in force for one year from the date of declaration of the result. (e) 10% vacancies in the cadre of Clerks shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Bailiffs, Process Servers, Daftri and Record Lifter possessing minimum Matric qualification or equivalent thereto having 5 years service as such subject to his qualifying the type test in English with a minimum speed of 30 w.p.m.” (emphasis applied) 10] It may be seen that in terms of Clause (d) reproduced above, only a “select list of successful candidates” prepared in order of merit, remains in force for one year from the date of declaration of the result. Admittedly, only eight posts of Clerks were advertised and two more posts were added by the High Court during the ongoing selection process. The District and Sessions Judge, Mansa, was thus required to prepare the select list of ten candidates only and to keep it alive for a period of one year. It is obvious that in the event of non-joining of any candidate and/or if a selected candidate is found ineligible or for any other valid reason, if the advertised posts remain unfilled then the next candidate in order of merit can be offered appointment. No such eventuality took place in the present case. All the ten selected candidates have admittedly joined the offered posts. That being so, the select list stood exhausted and there remained nothing to be kept alive for a period of one year. The petitioners are not amongst the selected candidates nor any “waiting list” was prepared. There C.W.P.No . 19046 of 2008 6 was no obligation under the Rules for the District and Sessions Judge, to prepare a “waiting list”. No fault, thus, can be found with the fresh advertisement which is meant to recruit the best and more meritorious candidates. The claim put-forth by the petitioners is wholly untenable in law. 11] Dismissed. However, no order as to costs. 08-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE