# Life of select list of Class III Employees in Subordinate Court on the basis of the

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 8/
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1990-01-25
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 8/
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/life-of-select-list-of-class-iii-employees-in-subordinate-court-on-the-basis-of-162266
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

181
C.L. No. 8/ Dated 1st March, 1997
Life of select list of Class III Employees in Subordinate Court on the basis of the
Regular test.
This is in continuation of the circular Letter No. 27 /VIIb-104/Admn.(D)
issued by the High Court on 24th May, 1996, in which it was communicated that the
decision on the life of the Select List of the candidates shall be intimated later on.
The Hon‟bie Court has taken a decision that the Select List prepared under the
rules will remain in force for the period of one year from the date of its publication and
the circular letter of the Court dated 28th July, 1994 is withdrawn forthwith.
I am directed to communicate the decision of the Hon‟ble Court for compliance.
I am, therefore, to request you to ensure the compliance of the instructions
containing in the Circular Letter with immediate effect.
(v) Advertisement before appointment
C.L. No. 10 /2003/J.R. (I) Dated 7th March, 2003
To advertise the post before making any appointment of any nature.
The Hon‟ble Court (Hon‟ble Mr. Justice A.K. Yog) while giving Judgement in
Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 18151 of 1997 Girish Lal and others Vs. District Judge,
Ballia and another has directed that it is mandatory obligation of all the district Judgeship
in the state to advertise the post before making any appointment of any nature and such
advertisement shall be made in two newspaper (one Hindi and one English) having wide
circulation in the district and in the State and such advertisement shall be issued at
reasonable interval in three consecutive issues.
I am, therefore, directed to send herewith a copy of the Judgment passed in Civil
Misc. Writ petition No. 16151 of 1997- Girish Lal and others Vs. District Judge, ballia
and another for your information and strict compliance.
(vi) General Instructions
C.L. No. 5/Ve-4/Admn. (D) dated 25th January,1990
G.O.No. 5912/VII-AN/89-29/12 regarding stoppage of recruitments through out the
State except that of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
I am directed to say that it has come to the notice of the Court that in pursuance of
the directions of the Government issued on the above subject, appointments have been
stopped in various Judgeships without seeking approval of the Court. In this connection
the Court has taken the view that appointment, against the sanctionals strength should not
be stopped.
I am, therefore, to ask you to make recruitment against the sanctioned strength
strictly according to Rules giving due representation to all the reserved categories.
C.L No. 16/Ve-41 Admn. (D) dated 16th February, 1990
Cancelling ban on recruitment in the Subordinate Courts G.O.No. 31/VII-AN 123/89
dated January 31,1990.
In continuation of Circular Letter No. 5/Ve-4/Admn (D) dated January 25, 1990, on
the subject of stoppage of recruitment under G.O.No. 5912/VII-AN/89 dated 29.12.1989,
I am directed to say that the ban imposed by the Government on recruitments under the
182
said G.O. has been relaxed by the Government, vide G.O. on the above subject, to the
extent that it shall not apply to the recruitments in the Subordinate Courts.
I am, therefore, to say that the directions issued in the aforesaid circular letter may
be read in the light of the position clarified by the Government as above and now all
recruitments and appointments may be made as usual, strictly according to Rules, giving
due representation to all the reserved categories.
C.L. No.6/Ve-4/ Admn. (D) dated 20th February, 1996
Directions in respect of posts falling under Rule 12 of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Court
Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955.
In compliance of the direction given in the Judgment dated 23.1.96 petition No.
5857 of 1994 Ram Babu and others vs. District Judge, Banda* (* For perusal Judgment,
See: 1996 AWC 516 (All) Extracts of the Judgement are reproduced) connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5913 of 1994 Ran Das Pal v. District Judge, Banda, I am
sending herewith a copy of the same for information and necessary compliance in future.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5857 of 1994 Ram Babu v. District Judge, Banda
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5913 of 1994 Ram Das Pal v. District Judge, Banda,
1996 A W C 516 (All)
Hon‟ble S.P. Srivastava, J.

In this case, the Hon‟ble High Court made the following observations:-
"The waiting list contemplated under rule 12 of the Rules has to be of a
reasonable proportion qua the number of vacancies actually notified and it will
not be reasonable to hold that the vacancies which are notified may be of any year
beyond the year succeeding to the year of recruitment. A situation ought not to be
created where an anticipated vacancy likely to occur beyond the year succeeding
the year of recruitment is filled up on the basis of a list maintained under rule 32
of the Rules which vacancy is neither notified nor ought to be notified for
preparing such list in any year of recruitment. It further seems to me that
considering the context, there can be no escape from the conclusion that any other
interpretation to the expression „reasonable dimension‟ will render the rule 12 of
the Rules constitutionally invalid and a constitutionally invalid provision cannot
be saved by being put into an otherwise valid statute. An interpretation of a
statutory provision must lean in favor of upholding the statutory provision as far
as possible. In the circumstances, there can be no escape from the conclusion that
the waiting list contemplated under Rule 12 must be deemed to have lapsed on the
filling up of the notified vacancies whether existing or likely to become available
for being filled up in the year of recruitment or the succeeding year thereto and
should not and cannot be deemed to be subsisting so as to cover the vacancies
likely to become available during an indefinite period, subsequent thereto. It is not
permissible for the District Judge to prepare a waiting list taking into
consideration such vacancies which are likely to occur beyond the year
succeeding the year of recruitment so as to block the entertainment of applications
for appointment against anticipated vacancies likely to occur beyond the
succeeding year of the year of recruitment without any specification as such an
action will be against the constitutional mandate noticed herein above.