# view of the proposed amendments in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 8/Ve-4/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1994-07-28
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 8/Ve-4/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/view-of-the-proposed-amendments-in-the-uttar-pradesh-subordinate-civil-courts-162262
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

179
view of the proposed amendments in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts
Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947.
C.L. No. 8/Ve-4/Admn. (D) dated 9th February, 1995
Ambiguity regarding marks obtained in optional subjects and compulsory subjects in
the recruitment test under the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment
Rules, 1947
Hon‟ble the Chief Justice and Judges have considered the matter of marks‟
obtained by candidates appearing in optional subjects in addition to the compulsory
subjects, in recruitment tests held under the U.P. Subordinate Courts Ministerial
Establishment Rules,1947 as amended from time to time and it has been decided that the
marks obtained by a candidate appearing in the optional subjects on his possessing the
prescribed speed in shorthand and typewriting, may not be added to the marks obtained in
the written test for the purpose of the merit list, which shall be prepared after conducting
examination both in compulsory and optional papers, but while preparing the Register of
selected candidates under Rule 14 (1) of the U.P. Subordinate Courts Ministerial
Establishment Rules,1947, an entry be made in remarks column against the name of the
candidate who has qualified also as a stenographer or as a typist.
I am, therefore, to ask you to kindly ensure strict compliance of the Court‟s
decision in the matter in connection with all recruitment tests held under the U.P.
Subordinate Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, as amended from time to time.
 (iv) Life of Select List
C.L. No. 66/Ve-4/Admn. (D) dated 28th July, 1994
Life of select list of Class III posts in subordinate courts
I am directed to say that the Court has been pleased to extend the validity of the
select list prepared by you in your judgeship for Class III posts from one to three years.
You are, therefore, directed to implement the instructions contained in this circular
letter with immediate effect.
C.L. No. 77/Ve-4/Admn.(D) dated 24th August,1994
Guidelines concerning operation of select list of Class III candidates while offering
appointments on the establishment of the subordinate courts.
In continuation of and with reference to the Court‟s C.L. No. 66/Ve-4/Admn.(D),
dated July 28, 1994 regarding the life of the select list prepared for appointment to Class
III posts to the subordinate courts, I am directed to send herewith the copies of two
judgments delivered by the Court on 19.5.1993 and 5.8.1994 in the following cases for
strict compliance :
1. Special Appeal No. 235 of 1993 connected with Special Appeals Nos. 233 of
1993 and 263 of 1993.*
2. Special Appeal No. 278 of 1993.
The guidelines prescribed in the two judgments, that appointment in short term
leave vacancy is not protected under Rule 14(3) of U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts
Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, must be strictly adhered to in the preparation of

* For perusal of Judgment see Sachida nand Singh v. State of U.P.; 1994 AWC 1023: 1994 (23) ALR 25 (H.C. Sum)
180
the approved or select list to be prepared in future and in case of any difficulty a
clarification must be sought from the Court.
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 1993
Ajay Kumar Asthana v. State of U.P. and another. S.S. Sodhi, C.J.*
The manouvered device of regular employees proceeding en masse on medical
leave and creating thereby leave vacancies in order that persons selected as paid
Apprentices, for whom no posts were available, could be appointed to such leave
vacancies and thereby claim regular appointment, is what was resorted to, to help the
appellant (one of the petitioners in the writ petition) achieve the object. It is now on this
basis that the appellant seeks regular appointment.
To give the relevant factual background, in 1985-86 the District Judge, Jaunpur,
held an examination for filling up some posts of the ministerial staff. This examination
was for selecting paid Apprentices to be appointed against permanent posts of clerks in
the civil court. A select list was prepared and duly published on March 24, 1986 and in
accordance therewith 23 persons were appointed as Paid Apprentices.
As per the report of the District Judge of April 15,1989, 46 employees took 35 days
leave en masse to create thereby leave vacancies. It was against one such leave vacancy
that the appellant was given appointment. The leave granted to the said 46 employees
was, however, subsequently cancelled and they were directed to resume duty within 15
days. The claim of the appellant, now in 1993, is that he is entitled to regular employment
on the basis of his short term employment in a leave vacancy in 1986.
Appointment to the Civil Courts is governed by U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts
Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟). A
combined reading of Rule 9 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 leaves no manner of doubt that
the select list is to enure for only a period of one year. These provisions read as under:
"9. Early in each year, or as the circumstances may require, each District Judge
shall recruit as many candidates for his judgeship as are required for the vacancies likely
to occur in the course of the year."
"14 (1) ..........................
 (2) .......................................
 (3) If any such candidate has not been given an appointment offered in strict
order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under sub-rule (1)
within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall be automatically
removed from the register of recruited candidates and he must then take his chance with
others for recruitment again in a subsequent year."
It follows that a candidate on the select list can claim to be appointed only in
respect of vacancies in the year for which the select list had been prepared and finalised.
In the present case the relevant year was 1986 and no appointment could thus be claimed
on the basis of this select list in 1993.
Such being the circumstances, no exception can indeed be taken to the judgment of
the learned Single Judge, which is accordingly hereby upheld and affirmed and this
Special Appeal is thus dismissed.
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