1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2011. (Rahul B. Thool and others Vs. The Registrar General, Bombay High Court, Bombay and another) Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.R. Sambre, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Reliance is placed upon Recruitment Rules for recruitment to Class III and Class IV Services in the Subordinate Judicial Service, particularly Rule 7 r/w Rule 5, to contend that select list displayed by District Judge, Wardha on 03.11.2008 has to remain valid for three years. It is contended that in the alternative, in any case as per the said rule, unless and until all the selected candidates in that list are appointed, the list cannot be 2 said to have been exhausted and hence in light of Rule 7 of the above Rules, the list must remain alive till the last candidate gets employment. Reliance is being placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (2011) 2 SCC 734 (Naseem Ahmad and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another), to support the argument in relation to life of select list stipulated is, three years. Support is also taken from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (2009) 1 SCC 362 (B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi Vs. Union of India and others ). It is also pointed out that at Thane, similar process was undertaken and the select list was displayed on 06.10.2008. Notice published their clearly revealed that select list was to remain valid from 06.10.2008 till 05.10.2011 i.e. for a period of three years. It is therefore, urged that when similar rule is applicable at Thane and Wardha, the approach of respondent no.2 in the matter is, discriminatory. It is pointed out that the life of select list at Wardha was extended for a period of one year i.e. till November, 2010. Writ Petition No. 684/210 filed by petitioner was then pending and that writ petition was disposed of on 01.09.2010, after noticing the statement 3 made in reply-affidavit by the learned District Judge, that his office was not going to issue any fresh advertisement for the post of Peon. The petition was thus allowed to be withdrawn with liberty. After that disposal the petitioners again made a representation on 18.11.2010 and sought extension of select list for a further period of one year and that application / representation dated 18.11.2010 is still pending. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for respondent contends that the petitioners were aware on 03.11.2008 that the list in their matter is going to remain valid for one year. Thereafter life of select list was extended further i.e. upto November, 2010. However, there is no further extension. He states that no appointment is made to Class-IV post in permanent capacity after November, 2010 and no advertisement or steps has been taken up so far to effect any such recruitment on permanent basis. He contends that petition as filed is therefore misconceived and without any merit. According to him, provisions of Rule 7 which contemplate indefinite life of such select list must be read properly and therefore, while displaying it the limit of one year was imposed on it's life. 4 We find that Rule 7 (a) provides that, select list has to remain in force till it is exhausted. There is no stipulation of any time limit in it. Therefore, it is apparent that till last candidate selected is appointed, the list has to remain in force. This also finds support from Rule 5 which requires scrutiny of the list by the Advisory Committee every year and to remove the names of those candidates who have become ineligible for recruitment. However, the petitioners have participated in selection process in response to advertisement. The advertisement specifically added a condition that the waiting list would be for a period of three years. The list displayed also carries heading that it is Approved Selection Waiting list for the post of Peon. At its end, it is clearly mentioned that it would remain valid for one year from 03.11.2008. It appears that the Registrar of the District Court had independently informed petitioners that list, would be for a period of one year. The petitioners have not challenged this communication or than this condition immediately. The fact that life of that list was extended for one more year i.e. from November, 2009 till November 5 2010 is also not in dispute. Earlier petition filed by them was therefore, allowed to be withdrawn with liberty. Now the petition as filed after about two years and withdrawal of earlier petition can not be viewed as challenge to the condition in communication publishing waiting list. Earlier petition filed vide Writ Petition No.684/2010 was withdrawn only due to statement that respondent no.2 was not going to publish fresh advertisement. It needs to be noted that respondent no.2 had then also urged that petitioners had no prima facie case. Pleadings in paragraph 6 show that effort was to have life of list extended beyond one year. It is apparent that the basic contention now is that list has to operate for a period of three years. The reliance being placed upon Rule 7 or then indefinite life of select list is only to support that contention. The facts in which the list was stated to be valid at Thane for a period of three years are not brought on record. Here we find that the decision to keep the list for one year was taken by High Court and communicated to respondent no.2 on 15.10.2008. The communication is in respect of publication of wait list of Clerks, Peons and 6 Sweepers and because of that communication, the condition that list would be valid only for a period of one year was added, when the waiting list was published on 03.11.2008. We have already noted above that the said condition was not challenge by any of the petitioners immediately. The extension of life of select list by further period of one year is to the benefit of petitioners hence, they have not challenged it. But then their conduct of withdrawing earlier writ petition on statement of respondent no.2 as recorded by this Court estopps them from raising this challenge. The reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi Vs. Union of India and others (supra), to contend that the terms and conditions of the advertisement must be determinative is misconceived in present appeal. Hon'ble Apex Court has found that U.P.S.C. could not have resorted to any other norm of that listing and was bound to follow one disclosed in the advertisement. However, the fact here show that the life of list was initially brought down to a period of one year, without there being any such stipulation in the 7 advertisement. As names of petitioners figure only in select list and they have not pointed out appointment of any person standing below them, we do not find any of their legal rights violated. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (supra), reveals that there the advertisement did not not mention the details or the number of posts, and the rules contemplate that it was to remain in force till it is exhausted. The appellant before Hon'ble Apex Court who had applied, were selected and appointment orders were also issued to them on 13.08.2001. These appointments were for newly created posts i.e. post which were created after advertisement. On 19.09.2003, the District Judge, passed an order as per the provisions of G.Os. dated 27.02.1974, 29.07.1995 and the order dated 23.01.1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Babu Vs. District Judge, Banda and declared that it was valid for a period of one year. The appointments made after 19.09.2001 were declared to be ad-hoc and he also canceled the select list/wait list. Because of this order the appointments of appellants 8 before Hon'ble Apex Court were treated as ad-hoc. It is therefore, clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the rights which had accrued because of selection and appointment made and then applied the law. Here the situation is otherwise. We gather that though life of select list has expired in November, 2010, no permanent appointments in Class-IV category have been made so far. It is apparent that if such appointments are to be made, again proper procedure is required to be followed. If such appointments are made before 3rd November, 2011, the petitioner may have made some grievance, but that does not seem to be the position here. Thus there is no point in seeking extension of life of select list till 03.11.2011. No interference is thus warranted in matter. The petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN