JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vishnu Shankar Gupta for the Appellants, learned standing counsel appearing for State and Sri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the High Court. 2. In all the above Special Appeals common question of law and facts are involved which relate to the legality of the selection of the class IVth employees in the Civil Court, Muzaffar Nagar. Therefore, all the above Special Appeals are being disposed of by the common judgment. 3. The challenge in the aforesaid appeals is to the judgment and order dated 10.07.2006 passed by Hon’be Arun Tandon, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38895 of 2004, A.K. Chaterjee v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32111 of 2004, Jagdish Chandra and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23795 of 2004, Mohd. Ausaf Ahmad Ansari and 20 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39960 of 2004, Bablu Choudhary v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and 2 others, respectively by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to the present Special Appeals may in nutshell be stated as under : The aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petitions related to the termination of the services of the petitioners-appellants who were appointed by the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan who later on elevated to the Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Khan) as Class IVth employee in the Civil Court, Muzaffar Nagar. The then District Judge in June 1998 initiated process for recruitment of class IVth employees as Process Servers, Orderely, Peons and Farrash in the Civil Court, Muzaffar Nagar in accordance with the Rules provided in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He accordingly advertised the vacancies in the newspaper calling the applications by 15.6.1998 from the willing candidates to be appointed as Process Servers, Orderely, Peons and Farrash. The scheduled date of examination was fixed as 27.6.1998. The selection process included written examination as well as interview. He accordingly advertised the vacancies in the newspaper calling the applications by 15.6.1998 from the willing candidates to be appointed as Process Servers, Orderely, Peons and Farrash. The scheduled date of examination was fixed as 27.6.1998. The selection process included written examination as well as interview. As many as 461 candidates applied for the above posts, however only 327 candidates out of 461 candidates turned up and appeared in the written test. The District Judge thereafter on the basis of written test and interview prepared a select list of 39 candidates. The candidate from Serial No. 1 to 18 of the select list were given appointment by the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan. Thereafter candidates from Serial No. 21 to 28 of select list were given appointment by the subsequent Judge, Sri R.C. Pandey who too later on elevated to the Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Pandey) The candidates are Serial No. 19 and 20 were found to be overage. The select list from Serial No. 29 and onward was cancelled by Sri R.C. Pandey. 5. A number of complaints were sent to the High Court regarding unfair selection of the candidates in the above examination. The High Court, prima facie, found that the appointment of the candidates were made by the District Judge in unfair manner and without following proper procedure provided under the Rules. Consequently, the High Court vide its letter No. 6753/VIIb-104 Admn “D” Section: dated 6.5.2004 directed the then District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar to inquire into the matter and cancel the examination if the selection of candidates were found to be unfair and illegal. Consequently, Sri N.L. Saxena, the then District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar inquired into the matter in great detail and found that the following irregularities were committed by the then District Judge in preparation of the select list : (i) (a) The applications received from the candidates were not properly indexed: nor were complete. (b) The application forms do not bear the date of receipt and signature of official receiving these forms and, therefore, it is not known when applications were received and by whom. (c) The register of applications also does not disclose the date on which these applications were received. (d) There is no indication that these applications were at all received in the office on or before the date fixed for the purpose. (c) The register of applications also does not disclose the date on which these applications were received. (d) There is no indication that these applications were at all received in the office on or before the date fixed for the purpose. (ii) The applications were not scrutinized as there were no such indications. (iii) The candidates who appeared for the test were required to write an essay on “DUTIES OF A PEON”. Many of them attempted to write such an essay. Some of the candidates, who were not selected, have written quite well and much better than the selected candidates. Some did not write essay yet were selected. (iv) No attendance-chart to show who and how many candidates appeared for the written test was prepared. (v) The answer-sheets were not checked or evaluated nor the District Judge got the answer-sheets examined and no marks were given on any of the answer-sheets (answer-books). (vi) Some of the selected candidate like Sri Bablu Chaudhary did not write anything on their answers-sheets and left them blank. (vii) No criteria or basis for selection was fixed or formed nor found from the records for preparation of Select List. (viii) No effort was made on record to verify the genuineness of the certificates of educational qualification of School Leaving Certificates of the candidates. (ix) There is nothing on record to show that any interview was taken by the District Judge. (x) There is also nothing on record to show that the character or antecedents of the selected candidates were got verified. (xi) The provision of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules which further provides that the Character and antecedents of the selected candidates must be such so as to render him suitable in respect of Government employment and it will be the duty of the Appointing Authority to safisfy itself on this point, were also not followed. (xii) Even the provisions of Rules 11 of the aforesaid Rules which provides for preference to be given to a candidate, who has passed Junior High School or an equivalent examination and can read and write English character, was not followed. (xiii) Educational qualification of candidates preferential in nature, was not considered. (xiv) The select-list was prepared not on merits but arbitrarily without adopting any basis unfair, void and illegal. 6. (xiii) Educational qualification of candidates preferential in nature, was not considered. (xiv) The select-list was prepared not on merits but arbitrarily without adopting any basis unfair, void and illegal. 6. The District Judge on the basis of above shortcomings and irregularities found that the select list of 39 candidates prepared by the then District Judge was arbitrary, unfair, void and illegal. Consequently, the District Judge terminated the services of the candidates employed on the basis of selection held above. The candidates whose services were terminated consequent to the order passed by the District Judge filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23795 of 2004, Mohd. Ausaf Ahmad Ansari and 20 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32111 of 2004, Jagdish Chandra and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39960 of 2004, Bablu Choudhary v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and 2 others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38895 of 2004, Ashok Kumar Chaterjee v. State of U.P. and others, respectively before this Court. 7. The above Civil Misc. Writ Petitions were contested by the High Court as well as the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Parties exchanged their affidavits. 8. The learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38895 of 2004, Ashok Kumar Chaterjee v. State of U.P. and others held that the District Judge had not followed the Rules provided under the Rules while preparing the select list and he had made selection of the candidates in illegal and arbitrary manner therefore the services of the petitioners had rightly been terminated by the Disrict Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. The learned Single Judge relying on the law laid down by this Court in the case of District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat v. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava and another, 2005 (1) ESC 724 (All), held that the Appointing Authority i.e. the District Judge exercising powers conferred by Rule 4 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 is not expected to act on his whims; rather he is expected to follow the procedure provided in the Rules. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petition was devoid of any merits, consequently he dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner vide judgement and order dated 10.7.2006. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petition was devoid of any merits, consequently he dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner vide judgement and order dated 10.7.2006. The learned Single Judge on the pattern of judgment and order passed in above writ petition dismissed the other Civil Misc. Writ Petitions on the same date i.e. on 10.7.2006. 9. The petitioners-appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order have filed the aforesaid Special Appeals. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that although a number irregularities have been pointed out by the then District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge relating to the examination and selection of the petitioners but irregularities pointed out by them did not materially affect the process of selection as well as the result declared by the District Judge. The District Judge pointed one of the irregularities that some of the candidates namely Bablu Chaudhary (petitioner-appellant) did not write anything on their answer-sheets and left them blank. If it was so only the candidature of those candidates could be cancelled not the entire selection process. The learned Single Judge did not thoroughly scrutinized the irregularities or illegality pointed out by the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Therefore, the impugned order is not based on proper appreciation of the facts of the case which is liable to be set aside. 11. The learned counsel for the High Court has supported the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the report of the then District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and argued that the learned District Judge after making a thorough inquiry into the matter found as many as 14 irregularities which materially affected the process of selection as well as result of the petitioners. These irregularities were almost illegalities which materially affected the process of selection of the petitioners which could not be ignored. The learned Single Judge had found that the District Judge after scrutiny of the complaints found that the appointment of the candidates by the then District Judge was against the procedure laid down under the Rules which was illegal. The learned District Judge after thorough scrutiny of the forms of the applicants and the answer books found that the process of selection was unfair. Moreover, the selection was made by the District Judge against the procedure laid down under the Rules. The learned District Judge after thorough scrutiny of the forms of the applicants and the answer books found that the process of selection was unfair. Moreover, the selection was made by the District Judge against the procedure laid down under the Rules. Therefore, the appointment of the candidates was void and illegal. The petitioners could not point out before the learned Single Judge as to how the finding of the District Judge was illegal as being against the factual aspect of the case. The learned Single Judge had no option except to accept the finding of the learned District Judge. The learned Single Judge in view of the law laid by this Court in the case District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat v. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava and another, 2005 (1) ESC 724 (All), held that the selection of the candidates by the then District Judge was void and illegal being against the procedure prescribed under the Rules. The finding of the learned Single Judge is based on material facts as stated in the affidavits, counter-affidavits as well as rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does suffer from any infirmity or illegality which does not call for any interference. 12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 13. From a perusal of a copy of the order of the District Judge (Annexure 3), it appears that the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan initiated process of selection of class IVth employees in the Civil Court, Muzaffar Nagar in the month of June 1998. He got vacancies published in the newspaper calling the applications from the willing candidates by 15.6.1998 to be selected as class IVth employees on the posts of Process Servers, Orderely, Peons and Farrash. The scheduled date of examination was fixed on 27.6.1998. As many as 461 candidates submitted their application forms. The selection process included written examination as well as interview. Out of 461 candidates only 327 candidates turned up and appeared in the written examination thereafter interview was held and the District Judge prepared a select list of 39 candidates. It will be relevant to mention here that the candidates from Serial No. 1 to 18 of the select list were posted by the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan. Out of 461 candidates only 327 candidates turned up and appeared in the written examination thereafter interview was held and the District Judge prepared a select list of 39 candidates. It will be relevant to mention here that the candidates from Serial No. 1 to 18 of the select list were posted by the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan. The candidates at Serial No. 19 and 20 were found overage therefore they could not be appointed. Thereafter, Sri R.C. Pandey, the subsequent District Judge appointed the candidates from Serial No. 21 to 28 of the select list. The select list from Serial No. 29 and onwards was cancelled by Sri R.C. Pandey. 14. A number of complaints were sent by the different persons to the High Court raising their fingers towards the unfair selection of the candidates in the above examination. The complaints were scrutinized at the High Court level and the High Court found that the selection was made by the District Judge in unfair manner as well as against the procedure laid down under Rules. The High Court also found that the selection was not fair too. 15. Consequently, the High Court directed the District Judge to inquire into the matter and pass suitable orders. The District Judge thereafter conducted a thorough inquiry into the matter and found as many as 15 irregularities as mentioned above from initial stage of receiving the application forms sent by the candidates up to their selection. These irregularities are of such nature which cannot be overlooked; rather these irregularities go to the very root of the process of selection. The District Judge inter alia has pointed out the two main irregularities which find place at Serial No. (V) and (VI) as mentioned above. These irregularities are : (V) The answer-sheets were not checked or evaluated nor the District Judge got the answer-sheets examined and no marks were given on any of the answer-sheets (answer-books). (VI) Some of the selected candidate like Sri Bablu Chaudhary did not write anything on their answers-sheets and left them blank. 16. In this case the selection process as per advertisement included written test as well as interview. 17. (VI) Some of the selected candidate like Sri Bablu Chaudhary did not write anything on their answers-sheets and left them blank. 16. In this case the selection process as per advertisement included written test as well as interview. 17. It will be relevant to mention here that a similar matter relating to the selection of class IVth employees in the District Court, Kaushambi came before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 668 of 2004; Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (96) ADJ 417 (DB). The Division Bench found that as per advertisement the selection process of class IVth employees of District Court, Kaushambi included written test of the candidates and interview but the answer books were not evaluated by the District Judge or the committee conducting the examination. The Court therefore held that the selection process was illegal. The Division Bench in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case K.S. Bohir v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2007 (10) SCC 264 and State of U.P. and others v. State Law Officers’ Association and others, AIR 1994 SC 1654 , observe that although the petitioners were employed but they did not deserve any sympathetic consideration as their selection was illegal. The Division Bench, therefore, cancelled the selection of petitioners as being illegal and violative of the Rules. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgement of the Division Bench approached before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 2010; Sridhar Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others. But the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated 29.1.2010. In this case too the District Judge has specifically found that the answer books of the candidates were not evaluated either by the then District Judge or by the Committee conducting the examination. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and others (supra) the selection process of the petitioners was illegal and violative of the Rules as provided under the Rules. 18. The learned District Judge had also found that answer books of some candidates like Bablu Chaudhary were left blank, this was also a serious irregularity. 18. The learned District Judge had also found that answer books of some candidates like Bablu Chaudhary were left blank, this was also a serious irregularity. It is very strange how Bablu Chaudhary was selected without writing a single word in his answer book. This fault will not only make the selection of Bablu Chaudhary as illegal and unfair; rather it makes the entire selection process unfair. It shows that the District Judge did not fairly conducted the selection. The other irregularities as pointed by the District Judge are of very serious nature to treat the impugned selection as unfair. 19. In view of the discussions above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar had rightly cancelled the examination and selection conducted by the then District Judge (Sri M.A. Khan), Muzaffar Nagar and consequently he had rightly terminated the services of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity or illegality with the impugned judgment and order which does not call for any interference. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present appeals which are liable to be dismissed. 20. These appeals as mentioned above are, therefore, dismissed. 21. The interim stay order stands vacated. The District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar is directed to declare the result of Class IV employees selected in the last examination and make appointment accordingly. The Registrar General is directed to get the compliance of this order ensured by the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. ————