# Appointments in respect of posts governed by the Subordinate Civil Courts

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 28/
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1983-02-24
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 28/
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/appointments-in-respect-of-posts-governed-by-the-subordinate-civil-courts-162249
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

172
C.L. No. 28/ dated 26th September, 2005
Appointments in respect of posts governed by the Subordinate Civil Courts
Ministerial Establishment Rule, 1945 read with the Uttar Pradesh Rules for the
Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950.
Upon Consideration of the matter pertaining to the appointments in respect of the
posts governed by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rule, 1945
read with the Uttar Pradesh Rules for the Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the
Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950 the Hon'ble Court in Special Appeal No- 702
of 2005- The District Judge, Baghpat and another Vs. Anurag Kumar and others has
observed and held as below:
1.
Rule 9 of the 1947 Rules empowers the District Judges to recruit as many
candidates as are required for the vacancies 'likely to occur in the course of the
year'. The exercise has to be commenced early in each year or as the
circumstances may require. This entails an exercise by the district Judges of
identifying the number of vacancies existing or likely to occur in the course of
the year. The Rule requires that such vacancies shall be calculated and
necessary steps shall be taken to make this fact generally known. What
follows is that the advertisement to be made has to be preceded by an exercise
by calculating the number of vacancies in the manner indicated herein above.
2.
Rule 10 of the 1947 Rules provides for an advertisement, disclosing the
number of vacancies, inviting applications in a particular form. The
advertisement, therefore, will be presumed to have included only such number
of vacancies/posts which are available in accordance with the calculation
made under Rule 9 and no other future vacancy. The Rule does not
contemplate advertisement of future vacancies, which can be taken into
account after the advertisement has been made.
3.
The recruitment is to be made on the basis of the result of the examination
under Rule 11 and for the said purposes; the list of selected candidates has to
be entered in a register in order of merit to be maintained by the District
Judges under Rule 14. Sub rule (3) of Rule 14, in no uncertain terms, provides
that in case a candidate who has not been offered appointment in accordance
with the said list within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name
shall automatically be removed from the register. These Rules establish that
the number of vacancies, which have to be advertised, are to be in acordance
with the Rule 9 and, therefore, the recital in the advertisement that the
vacancies are likely to increase or decrease has to be strictly construed in
accordance with the aforesaid Rules.
4.
What logically follows is that the District Judge is not at liberty to prepare a
list dehors the number of vacancies advertised. The position stands further
clarified by the Circular Letter No. 9/VIIb-104, Admn. dated 29-4-1999
issued by the High Court which clearly states that the select list shall not be
prepared by the District Judges for more than the double of the vacancies
advertised.
5.
The preparation of the select list for more than the double of this vacancies
advertised, is illegal and contrary to the Rules applicable.
6.
The selected candidates have right to appointment only against 'vacancies
notified' and that too during the life of the select list as the panel of selected
173
candidate cannot be valid of indefinite period. Moreover, empanelled
candidates "in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies."
7.
Once vacancies notified are filled up the selection process stand exhausted
and the authority concerned become functus officio.
8.
Any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies notified shall be
without jurisdiction, therefore, a nullity, in executable and unenforceable in
law.
9.
(a) The District Judge looses all authority and jurisdiction and is completely
forbidden from picking up any name out of the said list after the expiry of the
aforesaid period of one year for appointment.

(b) The District judge has no authority in law to give extension to the life of
which not only be operation of the Rules but also by declaration of law, stood
exhausted.
As the menace of illegal and unauthorized modes of recruitment continue unabated,
I am directed to send out herewith a copy of judgment and order dated 31-05-2005
aforedetailed, with the request that the contents of and directions in the judgment and
order be unerringly gone through all the way for ensuring well again standards of
recruitment.
(ii) Age Limit
C.L. No. 2/Vllf-208/Admn. (D) dated 7th January, 1986
The Court has adopted the maximum age limit prescribed in Rule 2 of the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1983 issued
under Government notification No. 18/2/1981-Personnel-2 dated February 24, 1983.
Accordingly, maximum age limit for recruitment to ministerial establishment of
subordinate civil courts shall be 30 years and it shall be deemed to have been raised from
28 years to 30 years under Rule 6 of the U.P, Subordinate Civil Court‟s Ministerial
Establishment Rules, 1947.
C.L. No. 39/Ve-92 dated 20th April, 1972
Scheduled caste candidates are entitled to a concession of five years in the
maximum age limit prescribed for recruitment.
C.L. No. 87 dated 16th October, 1968
The age of a candidate should be ascertained and scrutinized before allowing him to
appear at the test and in exceptional circumstances only exemption from the upper age
limit should be sought from the Court and this should be done before a candidate is
allowed to take the test.
C.L. No. 54/VIIf-208/Admn.(D) dated August 26, 1991
I am directed to invite your kind attention to the Court‟s Circular No.2/VIIf208/Admn. (D) Deptt. dated 7.1.1986, on the above subject, by which the maximum age
for recruitment to the ministerial establishment in the Subordinate Civil Courts was raised
to 30 years and to say that the Court has been pleased to adopt the Government
Notification No.l8/2/1981-Karmik-2, dated 30th March, 1991 raising the upper age limit
for recruitment to all such service and posts under the rule making powers of the
Governor to 32 years. Accordingly, the upper age limit for recruitment to the ministerial
establishment and also for recruitment to the Inferior Establishment of the Subordinate