JUDGMENT R. B. Misra, J.—Heard Sri Anurag Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is decided at this stage in view of second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 3. In the present writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the circular dated 29.4.1999 issued by the High Court (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and also writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result held for recruitment to the post of clerk and Stenographer in District Judgeship of Meerut. Further, prayer has also been made for declaration that the judgment dated 7.9.1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998, Mohd. Islam Siddiqui v. State of U. P. and another and circular dated 29.4.1999 have no application in any manner apply in the case of selection in question. 4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that a circular letter No. 27 was issued on 24.5.1996 by the High Court providing methodology for setting of question papers and also the methodology for conducting of examination for recruitment to the officials in the subordinate courts in order to avoid apprehension of corruption and malpractice in selection in the Judgeship. The recruitment of personal staffs in subordinate civil courts to the post of clerk and Stenographer is done under "U. P. Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947" (in short called "Rules 1947") as well as U. P. Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Officers, 1950 (in short called "Rules 1950"). By letter dated 20.7.1997 and 30.1.1998 this Court was informed by the then District Judge, Meerut about the vacancies of clerks/stenographers to be fulfilled by way of recruitment in order to fill up the 16 vacancies of clerk in class IIIrd cadre in the Judgeship of Meerut an advertisement was published in the month of February, 1998 in pursuance to the direction dated 24.5.1996 of High Court an examination was held in the month of 12.4.1998 with the cooperation and assistance of staff of Meerut Judgeship. The examination and the answer books were scrutinized under the supervision of High Court. The examination and the answer books were scrutinized under the supervision of High Court. By letter dated 13.1.1998 said select list was dispatched to the District Judge, Meerut, along with the mark sheets of each candidate and District Judge was directed to declare the result keeping in view the reservation policy. However, despite the directions of High Court (Administrative Side) for the reasons best known to the District Judge, the result was not declared and no appointment letters were issued pursuant to the select list. According to the petitioner the said recruitments were made in consonance to the circular dated 24.5.1996 issued under Article 235 of the Constitution and there was no complaint even of any irregularity, illegality, procedural impropriety in the said selection therefore, the result cannot be stopped. The examination of Hindi-Stenographer held on 24.3.1995 in Mainpuri, i.e., at least one year prior to the issuance of the said circular dated 24.5.1996 and the circular dated 24.5.1996 could not have been challenged in the Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998 as the said circular being perceptive in nature was issued after one year of the examination dated 24.3.1995 of the Judgeship of Mainpuri. 5. According to the petitioner the recruitment or selection to the post of clerk/ministerial cadre post, or the stenographer under Judgeship of a district is to be made by the District Judge itself but the examination including written and interview may be conducted by himself by any independent agency at the instance of District Judge or could be conducted by the High Court itself however, the vital aspect is who is the appointing authority? Undisputedly the District Judge is the appointing authority and it was he who to issue the appointment order when the selection process was already concluded with the help and cooperation of the team, associates and District Judge under the supervision of the High Court itself. The Rule 1947 contemplates only the appointment to be made by the District Judge but it does not contemplate that assistance, cooperation or help or supervision of other units in the selection or recruitments are not to be taken or it has to be made by the District Judge exclusively only and not by any independent agency High Court, any committee constituted for the purpose, or by the U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioners contended that recruitment to class-IV and class-III posts in judgeship of Gonda (U. P.) was conducted by U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad in June, 2003 and the result prepared by Commission was declared by District Judge followed by issuance of result and these assertions of petitioners being fact of record were not denied by the respondents. According to the petitioner most important aspect emerging for any recruitment is what to say of present selection in view of Rules 1947 is that the selection process should be fair and impartial and free from doubt. The present selection and recruitment in question is one which was conducted by nobody else or by any unit but by the High Court itself, where the fairness of selection is undisputed and unquestioned therefore, the District Judge could not afford to ignore the said selection and could not choose not to pronounce the result despite the direction of the High Court, which District Judge is under obligation to do in exercise of his power provided under Rule 1947. 6. The counter-affidavit has been filed indicating that when the circular dated 24.5.1996 was quashed by an order dated 7.9.1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998, Mohd. Islam Siddiqui v. State of U. P. and others, pertaining to the examination of District Judge, Mainpuri hence the District Judge, Meerut was not allowed to declare the result of his Judgeship. According to the respondents a very exhaustive Circular Letter No. 27 dated 24.5.1996 intended for holding of examination for recruitment of Class III employees under the existing Rules, 1947 as well as Rules 1950 under the guidelines evolved by the Court, was superseded by circular letter No. 9 dated 29.4.1999. According to the respondents Rules 9, 10, 11 of Rules 1947 clearly goes to show that the process of recruitment into the post of ministerial cadre in the District Judgeship has to be carried out by the District Judge and the recruitment is to be based on the result of competitive examination and interview taken by the District Judge. Rule 5 of Rules 1950 also provides that the competitive test shall be held by the subordinate office. Rule 5 of Rules 1950 also provides that the competitive test shall be held by the subordinate office. According to the respondents there are specific rules provided for recruitment on the basis of competitive examination to be taken by the head of the subordinate office in the District Judge, the said power could not be taken away by issuing executive instructions in the shape of circular dated 24.5.1996, according to which necessary ingredients e.g., preparing the question papers, examining the answer books, were taken away from the concerned District Judge in short nullifying the provisions of the Rules 1947. According to the respondents circular letter No. 14 dated 14.2.1995 whereby the power of the District Judge for holding the competitive test for selection to the post of ministerial cadre of clerks and stenographers of the District Judgeship was challenged in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998 in respect of District Judge, Mainpuri. Consequently this Court by its order dated 7.9.1998 quashed circular letter dated 14.2.1995 as well as Circular No. 27 dated 24.5.1996. According to respondents by appearing in the examination the petitioners do not acquire any right to the post and as a policy decision the result of the selection in question was rightly not declared. Therefore, not declaring the result and not giving appointment is not illegal. 7. The rejoinder-affidavit has been filed controverting the averments of the counter-affidavit and reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. 8. To test the submissions of respondents, it is appropriate to note the earlier paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of Rules, 1947 which reads as below : "9. Method of Recruitment.—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." "10. Applications of Recruitment.—Applications for recruitment shall be invited by the District Judge in Form A in Appendix-I by advertising in the papers, circulating in the locality the number of candidates to be recruited and the date of the examination. Every such application shall be put up before the District Judge and its receipt acknowledged." "11. Recruitment. — The recruitment shall be based on the result of a competitive examination and an interview by the District Judge at the head-quarters of the Judgeship. Every such application shall be put up before the District Judge and its receipt acknowledged." "11. Recruitment. — The recruitment shall be based on the result of a competitive examination and an interview by the District Judge at the head-quarters of the Judgeship. The examination and the interview shall be held in the manner laid down in Appendix-II ;" 9. It is very remarkable to note the Rules 9, 10 and 11 of "Rules 1947" are superseded and are no more in existence after the Rules for recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in Uttar Pradesh, 1950. However, Rule 5 of Rules 1950, provides as below : "5. Tests to be held annually.—The competitive tests shall be held at least once a year and at the time specified in the schedule by each head of a subordinate office for posts not requiring technical knowledge, e.g., Stenography : Provided that if the strength of any office does not warrant annual recruitment in a particular year, a competitive test shall be held whenever it becomes necessary to recruit a ministerial servant to the office." 10. It is noted that Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955, provides as below : "5. Appointing authorities.—All appointments to the establishment in a Judgeship shall be made by the District Judge : Provided that temporary or officiating appointments for a period not exceeding one month in the case of the establishment of the outlying district may be made by the presiding officer of the highest court of that district in the manner mentioned in Rule 1. Such appointments shall, however, be made subject to the approval of the District Judge concerned." 11. The above Rule 5 of "Rules 1955" indicated that appointment to the Judgeship is to be made by the District Judge and no body else but the examination was to be conducted by any independent agency, i.e., under the supervision of the High Court. Such appointments shall, however, be made subject to the approval of the District Judge concerned." 11. The above Rule 5 of "Rules 1955" indicated that appointment to the Judgeship is to be made by the District Judge and no body else but the examination was to be conducted by any independent agency, i.e., under the supervision of the High Court. The selection in question for which the petitioner is striving for to declare the result was not challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998 and the petitioner or any person who appeared in the said selection in question were never made parties in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998 as such the judgment dated 7.9.1998, prospective in nature is not binding to the petitioner and identically situated participants in the said selection and the dismissal of circular dated 24.9.1999 was not to affect the selection of petitioner in view of above circular by virtue of prospective overruling. In view of the doctrine of prospective overruling the selection already conducted in view of the circular dated 24.9.1999, shall be declared valid and genuine because at the relevant time it was valid and legal and was not set aside retrospectively, in view of the judgment of this Court in Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana, 2001 (9) SCC 550 , as well as in view of Kailash Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (6) SCC 562 and judgment of M. A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (7) SCC 517. 12. In Harsh Dhingra (supra) in para 7 it was observed by the Supreme Court as below : "Prospective declaration of law is a device innovated by the Supreme Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a device adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of law it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law, prior to the date of the declaration are validated. This is done in larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are bound to apply law declared by the Supreme Court are also duty bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future. This is done in larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are bound to apply law declared by the Supreme Court are also duty bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future. Since it is indisputable that a Court can overrule a decision there is no valid reason why it should not be restricted to the future and not to the past. Prospective overruling is not only a part of constitutional policy but also an extended facet of stare decisis and not judicial legislation." 13. In Kailash Chandra Sharma (supra) the Supreme Court has observed in para 40 as below : "The sum and substance of the doctrine of prospective overruling is that when the Court finds or lays down the correct law in the process of which the prevalent understanding of the law undergoes a change, the Court on considerations of justice and fair deal, restricts the operation of the new-found law to the future so that its impact does not fall on the past transactions. The doctrine recognizes the discretion of the Court to prescribe the limits of retroactivity of the law declared by it. It is a great harmonizing principle equipping the Court with the power to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice. Justification for invoking the doctrine was also found in Articles 141 and 142." 14. The Circular No. 27 dated 24.5.1996, has taken care of very broad based procedural formalities in consonance to the Rules 1947 as well as Rules 1950 in respect of consideration on vacancy, advertisement inviting applications and conducting of examination and making appointment by the District Judge only giving a detail about the conducting the examination in fairness, Coding and D Coding all the answer books and categorization of Zonewise of district with a specific indications that the rules relating to confirmation, seniority and promotion in respect of requisite candidates was subject to the Rules 1947 only to mention the fairness and in order to avoid apprehension of corruption and to uphold the fairness, the selection process and maintain impartiality the examination was conducted under the supervision of High Court and the selected list was sent to the District Judge for declaration of result and making of appointment however, the District Judge failed to perform the role and the duty assigned to him. The District Judge is being a statutory authority has to play his role to do a thing which he was under statutory obligation to do, however, he had chosen otherwise for the reasons best known to him, and deliberately did not declare the result of selection in question. 15. The law is well-settled that when the statute prescribed/provided for doing a particular thing in a particular manner, it could be done in that manner only in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Bhav Nagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 511 . The relevant portion of paragraph 40 is being reproduced : "It is well-settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof." 16. Although a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, however, the appointing authority, i.e., District Judge cannot ignore the select panel or could take decision of its whims decide not to make appointment when a person was selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which is to be offered to him keeping in view his merit position. There is no justification to ignore the select list for a candidate as there should be proper justifiable reason to decline to appoint of a selected person shown in the list, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in R. S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230. 17. The order of this Court dated 7.9.1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998 whereby the circular dated 14.2.1995 in respect of the appointment of Hindi Stenographer in the Judgeship of Mainpuri was quashed along with the Circular No. 27 dated 24.5.1996 though the later one was not directly under challenge. Whereas, prior to its being quashed or supersession by subsequent Circular No. 9 dated 24.9.1999 the appointment to the post of clerk as well as of stenographer made in the Judgeship of Meerut and the select list dated 13.1.1998 making final selection was dispatched to the District Judge, Meerut for declaration of the result. Whereas, prior to its being quashed or supersession by subsequent Circular No. 9 dated 24.9.1999 the appointment to the post of clerk as well as of stenographer made in the Judgeship of Meerut and the select list dated 13.1.1998 making final selection was dispatched to the District Judge, Meerut for declaration of the result. The examination which was conducted and concluded in reference to the circular dated 24.5.1996 shall not in any way be affected irrespective of the fact circular dated 24.5.1996 was cancelled subsequently with prospective effect on 7.9.1998 or after its supersession on 24.9.1998. From this point of view the selection made to the post of clerk in class III posts as well as to the post of Stenographers in the Judgeship of Meerut in reference to the advertisement made in the month of February, 1998, shall be treated to be a genuine selection and select list dispatched by the High Court to the District Judge, Meerut on 13.1.1998 is also to be acknowledged as a true select list as the genuine selected candidates which shall not be affected by the order dated 7.9.1999. 18. The selection in question was conducted in view of the guidelines given in the circular dated 24.5.1996 in District Judgeship of Meerut itself with the co-operation of the officers of District Judgeship under the supervision of the officials of the High Court and entire selection was fair, free from any kind of irregularity or any procedural-impropriety and the select list was sent by the High Court to the District Judge to declare the result for making appointment in accordance to the provisions of Rules 1947. When the said selection was concluded, it cannot be said illegal merely because it was conducted under the supervision of High Court to avoid apprehension of malpractice, corruption or any type of foul play. The said circular dated 24.5.1996 pertaining to the Judgeship of Meerut was not directly challenged in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998. When the said selection was concluded, it cannot be said illegal merely because it was conducted under the supervision of High Court to avoid apprehension of malpractice, corruption or any type of foul play. The said circular dated 24.5.1996 pertaining to the Judgeship of Meerut was not directly challenged in Writ Petition No. 11566 of 1998. However, the said judgment dated 7.9.1998 declaring the circular dated 14.2.1995 in addition to circular dated 24.5.1996 shall have prospective effect and the selection and the recruitment already conducted in the light of circular dated 24.5.1996 in Judgeship of Meerut is free from any defect is to be given due honour and the directions of the High Court for declaring the result are also to be treated as legal and to have been given in due course and the selection in question is to be declared legal forthwith with further directions to declare the result in consonance to select list and appointments to issue accordingly against the existing vacancies. 19. In these circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the mandamus is issued for declaring of the result and to issue appointment order of petitioner and other successful candidates in the said selection expeditiously against the existing vacancies within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to cost.