IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD
SUPPLEMENTARY
AFFIDAVIT
IN
ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
CIVIL
MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.
OF 2011
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India)
(DISTRICT – BANDA)
1.
Allahabad Adhivakta Sangthan, Allahabad, (Registered
Under Society Registration Act bearing No. 479 of 1998) through its Secretary
Radhey Shyam Pandey Advocate.
2.
Radhey Shyam Pandey (Advocate) Registration
No.3919/1983, s/o Shri D.P. Pandey r/o 396-C/9 Chandpur Salori, Allahabad
--------------------------Petitioners
Versus
1.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
through its Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
2.
Selection Committee Ministerial Staff
Establishment (Class III Post) Judgeship, District Banda through its Chaiman,
District Judge, Banda.
3.
State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary
Law and Justice, Secretariat, Lucknow
-------------------------Respondents
Radhey
Shyam Pandey (Advocate) Aged about 54 years s/o Shri D.P. Pandey r/o 396-C/9
Chandpur Salori, Allahabad
( Deponent)
I,
the deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under.
1.
That the deponent is the petitioner no. 2 in
the above mentioned case and the secretary of the petitioner’s Association and
as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the case deposed to below.
2.
That the proprietary of the order issued by Hon’ble high court C.L. No. 1/ ve –
4/ Admin ( D) dated January 2, 1987 is required to be examined by this Hon’ble
court through Judicial scrutiny as the misc. writ petition as reported by the
registry of this Hon’ble Court.
3.
That at the vary out set it is submitted in
the present supplementary affidavit that the functioning of the “Government” as
enshrined under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are executive
functions of the State Government the General rules in exercise of the power
conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India came into existence in
U.P. Gazette Part-1A dated 15th July, 1950 U.P. Rules for
Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of subordinate offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950
and Circular dated 2nd January, 1987 issued by Allahabad High Court
being the rules for recruitment of the generalized posts in the different department
in the state of utter Pradesh may further be read with only Judicial (A)
Department in the offices of subordinate civil Courts only does not override
the entire rules of recruitment ministerial establishment of the “Judgeship of
a particular judgeship under the District Judge as a Unit” after the amendment of
Rule of 1947 Rules by Court’s Circular Endorsements No 118 dated October 30,
1969. The inference only be inferred by relying upon the rule of implied
repeal, if any at the most be dealt with to dealt with the case of Om prakash
shukla versus Akhilesh Kumar Shukla AIR 1986 SC 1043. The earlier law of 1947
rules being adopted, even after enactment made under our Constitution of India
on the subject would continue to operate.
4.
That the logical necessity of having the
rule 9 to 12 of 1947 Rule and Appendix II to it on the above topic in the light
of 1969 amendment be given effect by inter predating the principle of
contradiction, but not by substituting selection made by Competitive test by
the word written examination only and declaring there in that there is no
provision for interview and as such coding and decoding of the answer books is
not required to be done at Allahabad as strict vigil is done under the
supervisions of OSDs upon the ADJs in Guest House of Allahabad High Court at Drummond
Road in District Allahabad by Hon’ble
Inspecting Judge having the responsibility of the judicial work w. e. f. 17th
March 2011 up to 29th march 2011without seeking prior permission of
the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The power and duties of the Hon’ble Inspecting
Judge are prescribed under Chapter III Rule 4 (B) in relation to the Judicial
functioning and working of subordinate Courts.
5.
That Subordinate offices Ministerial staff
( Direct recruitment) Rule 1975 in so far as Rule 20 of 1975 Rules clearly
stated that the 1950 had been repealed. The 1975 Rules did not apply to the
subordinate Courts the control and superintendence of the High Court, but this
will not Confer any power in the matter of recruitment of Ministerial
Establishment of the Judgeship of a particular District as Unit to the Hon’ble
Inspecting Judge.
6.
That Rule 14 of 1947 rule further
prescribed that Names of candidate recruited under rule 12 shall be entered in
a bound register in form (B) prescribed in Appendix 1 and each entry shall be
initialed and dated by the District Judge after he has inspected the original
of attested copies of certificate including the entry in remark column against
the name of stenographer, who has qualified himself.
7.
That in Writ petition No. 3155 of 1985,
Pawan Singh & others Versus District Judge Agra Decided on 23.1. 1987 it has been held that the
candidate including stenographer may be appointed from amongst the select list
of the candidate so approved by the District Judge with his initial and date on
he basis of competitive test and out side this merit list no one will be
selected, but in this case the selection list has been prepared by the
committee consisting of Sri B.D. Naqvi and Sri R. P. Singh ADJ’s posted in
Banda as per the direction of the Hon’ble inspecting Judge. Both these officers
are neither the District Judge of Judgeship Banda nor the member of deputed
four officers by the incharge District Judge on 16. 03.2011.
8.
That it is not clear in the minutes of
Selection Committee, Filed as Annexure
4, that what happened there in the official residence of District
Judge, Banda on 14. 3. 2011 at about 6.00
P.M.. it is noted that under the
direction of the Hon’ble Inspecting/ Administrative judge, when the direction issued on 11.3.2011
for completion of the process of
evolution till 18.3. 2011 were not complied by the chairman / District Judge,
the District Judge / Chairman of the committee has to proceed on medical leave.
Whether the In- charge District judge
may depute four officers on 16.3. 2011, in place of District Judge of the
Judgeship Banda as nothing has been said about the said procedure as per the
requirement of Rule 14 of the rule of 1947 applicable in the selection process?.
Whether two taxies can hired and for carrying the Box and four officers, in the supervision of Sri R. P. Singh ADJ
took out all the sealed bindles containing answer books could have been send to
Allahabad in the guest house of High Court at Allahabad at Drummond Road,
Allahabad. The entire selection process is vitiated under law as the requirement
of recruitment process has not been followed, nor any such procedure of having
the scrutiny of the answer sheet and the examination there of the 5 ADJ’s of
District Allahabad has been done under the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice as per the minutes of Selection Committee.
9.
That this supplementary affidavit may
kindly be accepted by the Hon’ble court as the part of the contents of writ
petition as justice may be done.
I the deponent above
named, do hereby solemnly affirm and swear that the contents of paragraph no.1,
8, 9, of the affidavit are true to my
personal knowledge; those of the contents of paragraph nos.2 of the affidavit
are true based on perusal of the record; those of the contents of the paragraph
no. Of the affidavit are true based on information; and those of the contents
of the paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, are
based on legal advice; which all I believe to be true that no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed here in this affidavit.
So
help me God. (DEPONENT)
I, Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High
Court, Allahabad do hereby declare that the person making this affidavit and
alleging himself to be the deponent is the same person and is known to me from
the perusal of records; which he produced before me in the case.
(ADVOCATE)
Solemnly affirmed before me on the 5 th day of April , 2011 at
about a.m./p.m. by the deponent who has
been identified by the aforesaid Advocate.
I have satisfied myself by examining the
deponent that he understands the contents of this affidavit, which has been
read over and explained to him.
(OATH COMMISSIONER)
No comments:
Post a Comment