JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 be taken on record. 2. Heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for High Court and District Court at Saharanpur and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 3. These two writ petitions have been filed by four petitioners in all. The facts of both the writ petitions with regard to appointment of all the petitioners are identical. Therefore, a common order is being passed. The facts on record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41816 of 2005 are being treated to be the leading case. 4. Petitioner before this Court seek quashing of the order dated 28th February, 2010 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, where-under he has relieved the petitioner from the post of Stenographer on the ground that such appointment was made in excess of the sanctioned posts available in the Judgeship, Shaharanpur. Petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 16th May, 2005 where-under respondent no.4 was attached to the Fast Track Court No. 1 as stenographer on deputation. 5. The facts in short leading to the present writ petition are as follows: There were three vacant posts of Stenographers available in the judgeship of District Saharanpur. The said three posts were advertised for appointment. The then District Judge actually appointed seven persons as against three advertised and actual vacancies available. Thus, four persons were appointed as Stenographers against non non-advertised and non-existing posts. The subsequent District Judge on being made aware of the aforesaid situation passed an order 28.2.2005, whereby the appointment of the excess appointees i.e. four Stenographers was ceased. It appears that the aforesaid four persons approached the Administrative Judge of Saharanpur at the relevant time by way of representation. The Administrative Judge passed an order dated 10th July, 2005 directing that the aforesaid four persons be adjusted against the posts, which have been made available for the Fast Track Court's. The order on the administrative side passed by the Hon'ble High Court is not on record, only the letter indicating the said direction has been annexed as Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. The four persons claim to be working in terms of the order passed by the Administrative Judge. The four persons claim to be working in terms of the order passed by the Administrative Judge. They were not paid their salary in absence of suitable posts against which their salary could be drawn. The District Judge, Saharanpur forwarded a letter to the High Court on administrative side dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure No.R.A.-2) seeking a direction as to under which head the salary of the aforesaid four persons is to be released. From the record, it appears that no reply was sent by the High Court to said query. The aforesaid four persons have, therefore, approached this Court by means of these two petitions for a mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure payment of salary as well as for quashing of the order dated 28.2.2005, which has since been modified by the Administrative Judge on the representation made by the petitioner as stated above. On behalf of the petitioner it is vehemently contended that since they are working in the judgeship at Saharanpur, the respondent authorities are under legal obligation to make payment of salary for the work which has been taken from them. It is alleged that begar is prohibited under the Constitution of India. This Court vide order dated 17th March, 2010 required the Registrar General of this Court to examine the grievance of the petitioner and to take a stand on administrative side either in favour of petitioner or against him. Today a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the Registrar General of this Court enclosing the decision taken qua the claim of the petitioner. A copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-SC-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit. The Registrar General has held that if the petitioners are working as Stenographers in Fast Track Court, their salary be released from the Fast Track Courts' Account and if they are working on the civil side then their salary be drawn from "03-District & Sessions Judge" head. It is worthwhile to reproduce paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41816 of 2005 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur, which reads as follows: "8. That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the selection of 7 posts of Stenographer was illegal and unauthorized. Writ Petition No. 41816 of 2005 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur, which reads as follows: "8. That in reply to the contents of para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the selection of 7 posts of Stenographer was illegal and unauthorized. When there was advertisement of only 3 posts, the then District Judge, Saharanpur was not authorized to select/appoint more than 3 candidates. The variation clause in the advertisement is immaterial as opined by the Apex Court." It is also worthwhile to reproduce paragraphs-12 and 13 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar (General), High Court, Allahabad on behalf of the High Court, which reads as follows: "12. That the answering respondent submits most humbly that it appears that the aforesaid facts could not be placed for the consideration of or notice of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Hon'ble Court and because of this, His Lordship proceeded on the assumption that the Petitioners had been appointed in vacancies in Fast Track Courts. The order dated 11.7.2005 came to be passed by the Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court in implementation of the above order made by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. 13. That the appointment of the petitioner is a nullity in light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of District Judge, Baghpat versus Anurag Kumar, reported in 2005 (2) ESC 1509 ." This Court is sorry to record that the Registrar General has not cared to examine as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law or not and as to how any person appointed in excess of sanctioned posts in the judgeship at Saharanpur, can be paid salary from the State Funds. 6. From the facts, which have been noticed herein above, it is apparently clear that there were only 3 posts of Stenographer actually vacant within the sanctioned strength in the Judgeship of Saharanpur. Advertisement published for the purpose also mentioned that there were three vacant posts, yet the District Judge concerned passed an order appointing 7 persons. 6. From the facts, which have been noticed herein above, it is apparently clear that there were only 3 posts of Stenographer actually vacant within the sanctioned strength in the Judgeship of Saharanpur. Advertisement published for the purpose also mentioned that there were three vacant posts, yet the District Judge concerned passed an order appointing 7 persons. The High Court on the administrative side should have cancelled such appointment, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that (a) once the number of vacancies advertised have been filled, the select list became non est and cannot be utilized for any purpose whatsoever, (b) any appointment in excess of the sanctioned posts would be void ab nitio. 7. In the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. versus Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 976 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "5. Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution enshrines fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to a post under the State. Therefore, vacant posts arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates to be considered for their selection in accordance with their merit. The recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution............................. Boards should notify the existing and excepted vacancies and the Recruitment Board should get advertisement published and recruitment should strictly be made by the respective Boards in accordance with the procedure to the notified vacancies but not to any vacancies that may arise during the process of selection. (Emphasis added) 8. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2900 , the Apex Court examined the case where only one post was advertised and the candidate whose name appeared at Serial No. 1 in the select list joined the post, but subsequently resigned. (Emphasis added) 8. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 2900 , the Apex Court examined the case where only one post was advertised and the candidate whose name appeared at Serial No. 1 in the select list joined the post, but subsequently resigned. The Court rejected the contention that post can be filled up offering the appointment to the next candidate in the select list observing as follows: "With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select list prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently." 9. Any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised, is without jurisdiction, therefore, a nullity, in-executable and un-enforceable in law. 10. The factual situation in this case is worst, as there was no vacancy against any sanctioned post qua which the four persons could be appointed. 11. This Court may clarify that petitioner relied upon an order passed by the Administrative Judge of the Judgeship of Saharanpur at the relevant time, wherein petitioner was directed to be adjusted in the Fast Track Courts. I am of the prima facie opinion that such orders of the Administrative Judge will not infuse life in void appointment of the petitioner and the High Court should have normally taken appropriate action to ensure that any person appointed in excess of the sanctioned and advertised post, is not permitted to work. Mistake, if any, should have been corrected, but such is not the practice in the High Court. For five years, the Registrar General has slept over the file and today an affidavit is being filed on his behalf that since the petitioners are working, they should be paid salary. 12. In my opinion, the stand of the Registrar General is patently a negation of rule of law, which applies to the employees of the Courts under the superintendence of the High Court like to any other citizens of the Country. 12. In my opinion, the stand of the Registrar General is patently a negation of rule of law, which applies to the employees of the Courts under the superintendence of the High Court like to any other citizens of the Country. Public money cannot be permitted to be used for payment of salary to such void appointees. 13. However, if the Registrar General of the High Court has taken a decision to pay salary to such class of appointees, let him do so from his own pocket. It is made clear that Government money shall not be utilized for the purposes of payment of salary to the petitioners, whose appointment, prima facie, has been made in excess of the sanctioned post and in excess of advertised posts. He must transmit requisite money to the District Judge, Sahanpur for the purpose from his personal account within four weeks from today. 14. List this matter for further orders after four weeks. In the meantime, petitioners are at liberty to file an affidavit justifying their appointment.