IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 96 of 2007 (S/B) Smt. Neetu Singh. ………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ..………. Respondents Ms. Neetu Singh, petitioner in person. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner, who happens to be a lady and a practising Advocate since 7th January, 1997, that she has been selected by a committee constituted by this Court for being appointed as a Judge, Family Court. No doubt, there is an interview call letter dated 20th May, 2004, issued by the then Registrar General, asking the petitioner to appear before a committee, constituted by this Court, for interview on 22nd May, 2004 at 01:30 p.m. There is a notification issued by the Chief Secretary of the State, indicating that the petitioner and Smt. Pushpa Bhatt are being appointed as Additional Judge, Family Court, for a period of one year on ad hoc basis, in exercise of power under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Family Court Act, 1984. It also appears that the petitioner assumed the charge of her office of the Judge Family Court, Roorkee, on 3rd July, 2004. But, there is nothing on record to suggest that before any such step was taken, any decision was taken by this Court, which, under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India, is binding on the State Government, to supply the vacancy in the post of Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, by making direct recruitment for that post and, if so, whether applications were invited from eligible candidates to show their inclination for being selected to hold the said post. 2 2. We, accordingly, directed the petitioner and the High Court to file separate affidavits to bring on record any such decision of the High Court, followed by any notification / advertisement. The High Court is categoric in its supplementary affidavit that no such decision was taken, nor any advertisement / notification was published anywhere at any point of time. Petitioner has not been able to bring on record any evidence contrary to the assertions made by the High Court. 3. The purpose of the present writ petition is to challenge the decision of this Court, taken in its administrative side on 13th December, 2006, not to allow the petitioner to function as Additional Judge, Family Court, Roorkee any further. When, in fact, no decision was taken by this Court to appoint anyone directly as Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, and when no advertisement was published nor any notification was issued inviting applications for filling-up the post of Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, the very appointment of the petitioner was an illegal appointment. The same could not, under any circumstances, be continued even for one day. In the circumstances, decision taken by this Court on 13th December, 2006 not to permit the petitioner to continue any further is unassailable. 4. Despite having been, thus, appointed, petitioner wanted to sit in the H.J.S. examination, but the application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that she is already working as a H.J.S. Officer. The fact remains that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was, in fact, working as a H.J.S. Officer. Such working was a creation of the petitioner herself. While she was, thus, working, she could not appear in H.J.S. examination. Petitioner is, alone, to be blamed for having not been permitted to appear in the said examination, for she procured an appointment in a most illegal manner. 5. The writ petition, thus, fails and is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 25.05.2011 25.05.2011 G