JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P.Sahi, J.—These two writ petitions relate to a dispute concerning Class-IV appointments in the District judgeship of Ghazipur. The matters were nominated to this Bench vide order dated 8.6.2005. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, therefore the matter is being proceeded with to be disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing in both the cases. I have heard Sri V.D.Chauhan for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 and Sri Vikas Budhwar for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. Sri Rajeev Gupta has been heard for the respondent High Court and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 Rajesh Kumar, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava and Chandrama Ram are the respondent Nos. 12,13 and 14 in the Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. In view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed it is not necessary to further await any notices on respondent Nos. 4 to 11,15 and 16 in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. 3. The first Writ Petition of 2005 has been filed questioning the order dated 24.5.2005 whereby the three petitioners therein have been informed that their services along the services of Anurag Srivastava (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008) are no longer required, as Court Nos. 1 and 2 namely the N.D.P.S.Courts in the District Judgeship have been abolished. Subsequently on a representation made by Anurag Srivastava and on a direction issued by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge to consider his representation, the then District Judge re-engaged Anurag Srivastava. 4. It is at this stage that the three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 challenged the order of termination primarily on the ground that it was passed without any notice or opportunity and that it had been passed on erroneous assumptions of facts as the petitioners were working in the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Ghazipur and hence reference to the N.D.P.S. Court was unwarranted and thirdly the learned District Judge had re-engaged Anurag Srivastava whose services had been simultaneously terminated. Hence the petitioners were discriminated. The said writ petition was entertained and the following order was passed on 9.6.2005: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amit Sthalkar for respondents 1 and 3. Learned Standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. Hence the petitioners were discriminated. The said writ petition was entertained and the following order was passed on 9.6.2005: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amit Sthalkar for respondents 1 and 3. Learned Standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 24.5.2005 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) whereby the services of the petitioners alongwith the services of Shri Anurag Kumar Srivastava have been dispensed with on the ground that since the N.D.P.S. Courts 1 and 2 have been abolished w.e.f. 12.5.2005, the services of the petitioners are no more required. The allegation of the petitioners is that they were appointed on ad hoc basis and have continued since the year 2001 and that they were not appointed for the N.D.P.S.Courts and, as such, the very foundation of the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption. It has been further alleged that the District Judge, Ghazipur has retained Sri Anurag Kumar Srivastava after passing of the impugned order, vide order dated 30.5.2005. A perusal of the order dated 30.5.2005 indicates that the services of Sri Anurag Srivastava have been retained for further period of one year against the vacancy in a Fast Track Court. A perusal of facts stated in para 20 of the writ petition further discloses that the five persons, who were appointed much after the appointment of the petitioners, are still being retained in service on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, who are admittedly senior to the persons, referred to in para 20, have been removed from services for no valid reasons. It is thus obvious that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption which amounts to hostile and invidious discrimination for which the District Judge, Ghazipur shall furnish an explanation by filing his personal affidavit in this regard. It is thus obvious that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption which amounts to hostile and invidious discrimination for which the District Judge, Ghazipur shall furnish an explanation by filing his personal affidavit in this regard. It is further directed that a copy of this order alongwith the report of the District Judge, Ghazipur shall be placed before the Administrative Judge of the Judgeship concerned for appropriate action in the matter, inasmuch as in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of District & Sessions Judge, Baghpat v. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava and others, 2005(1) ESC 724 (All)(DB), under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, such matters may be taken note of and appropriate orders can be passed under the aforesaid provisions by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge as he has complete supervisory control not only over the Judgeship concerned but also over the matters pertaining to the ministerial and Class IV staff attached with the said Judgeship. At this stage, Sri Sthalkar has referred to the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311 , in support of his submission to the effect that this Court should not interfere with the termination order as any interim order will amount to grant of final relief at this state. Having examined the contentions of the parties and the facts, as brought out herein above, it is obvious that the services of the petitioners are very much required in view of the fact that the juniors to the petitioners and Shri Anurag Srivastava whose services have also been dispensed with alongwith the petitioners, have been retained by the order of the District Judge himself. The aforesaid facts, therefore, clearly go in favour of the petitioners and,as such, the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case and it is, accordingly provided that the operation of order dated 24.5.2005, in so far as it relates to the dispensation of the services of the petitioners, shall remain stayed and it is further provided that the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with so long as juniors to the petitioners have been retained in service. Let a counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks and the matter shall be listed on 10th July, 2005.” 5. Let a counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks and the matter shall be listed on 10th July, 2005.” 5. A counter-affidavit was filed in the said writ petition and in para 23 thereof the then District Judge, Ghazipur has averred that the petitioners were not entitled to any show cause or opportunity of hearing prior to their termination as they were appointed purely on ad hoc basis and no procedure had been followed for their appointments as prescribed in Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Inferior Establishment , Rules 1955. In para 24 of the same counter-affidavit, it was pointed out that Anurag Srivastava was not junior to the petitioners and that it was in order to meet out the urgency of the functioning of the Fast Track Court that Anurag Srivastava was considered for accommodation as a peon, as there was no sufficient time to make regular appointments on the post of peons in the Fast Track Court. The District Judge further indicated that he was ready to consider the candidature of the petitioners in future against available vacancies. 6. After the aforesaid counter-affidavit was filed this Court taking notice of the same found discrepancies as admitted by the District Judge himself and as such the Registrar (Confidential) of this Court was commanded to hold an inquiry and submit a report keeping in view of the aforesaid averments contained in the counter-affidavit of the District Judge. The order dated 24.8.2005 is quoted below: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vikram D.Chauhan and Sri Amit Sthalekar for the respondents No. 1 and 3. While entertaining this petition, I passed a detailed order dated 10.7.2005. A counter-affidavit sworn by District Judge Ghazipur has been filed. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were appointed against the vacancies of S.C./ST. Act Courts While passing the order on 10.7.2005, this Court took notice of the fact that one Sri Anurag Srivastava, whose services had been dispensed with and who he was re-engaged later on, was junior to the petitioner and as such this Court passed the order permitting the petitioners to continue and not to dispense with their services. Sri Sthalekar has invited the attention of the Court towards para 24 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the District Judge is ready to consider the candidature of the petitioner in future against the future vacancies. Sri Sthalekar has invited the attention of the Court towards para 24 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the District Judge is ready to consider the candidature of the petitioner in future against the future vacancies. The re engagement of Anurag Srivastava has been justified on the basis of order of the Hon’ble Administrative Judge. The manner in which the appointments had been resorted, indicates that the ad hoc appointments are being resorted to without reference to the Rules and the judicial pronouncement of this Court. The Registrar General either himself or through Registrar Confidential is, therefore, directed to hold an enquiry in respect of the ad hoc appointments of class IV employees in the Judgeship Ghazipur and submit a report keeping in view the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the District Judge filed in the present writ petition. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of six weeks and report shall be placed before this Court by the next date fixed. It has been stated in para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit that even though the petitioners have been re-engaged after passing of the interim order, but were not paid their salary The District Judge , Ghazipur is directed to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioners till the matter is finally disposed of by this Court. List after expiry of six weeks.” 7. An enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Confidential).The enquiry report dated 7.10.2005 is quoted below: “Pursuant to order of Hon’ble Court dated 24.8.2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005, Rajesh Kumar v. Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad and others, directing an enquiry in respect of ad hoc appointments of Class -IV employees in the judgeship of Ghazipur and submit a report keeping in view the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the District Judge filed in the present writ petition, the present enquiry was entrusted to the undersigned by your goodself’s order dated 31.8.2005. In the order dated 24.8.2005, Hon’ble Court made the following observation: It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were appointed against thevacancies of S.C./S.T.Act, Courts while passing the order on 10.7.2005, this Court took notice of the fact that one Sri Anurag Srivastava, whose services had been dispensed with and who he was re-engaged later on, was junior to the petitioner and as such this Court passed the order permitting the petitioners to continue and not to dispense with their services. Sri Sthalekar has invited the attention of the Court towards para 24 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the District Judge is ready to consider the candidature of the petitioner in future against the future vacancies. The re-engagement of Anurag Srivastava has been justified on the basis of order of the Hon’ble Administrative Judge. The manner in which the appointments had been resorted, indicates that the ad hoc appointments are being resorted to without reference to the Rules and the judicial pronouncement of this Court.” In the light of observation of Hon’ble Court, in the aforementioned order, after perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Judge, Ghazipur, it was felt necessary that the entire record relating to appointment of Class-IV employees in the judgeship of Ghazipur (whether ad hoc or otherwise), from the year 2001 till date, including orders by which some of them were ceased and subsequent re-appointment of any of them, be summoned from the district. The entire material has since been received by the undersigned. Statements of Sri Raj Narayan, Senior Administrative Officer & Sri Pramod Chandra, Central Nazir of the judgeship were also recorded in the enquiry. The details of the appointments made from the year 2001 to 7.9.2005 as furnished by the judgeship are as follows : Sl. The entire material has since been received by the undersigned. Statements of Sri Raj Narayan, Senior Administrative Officer & Sri Pramod Chandra, Central Nazir of the judgeship were also recorded in the enquiry. The details of the appointments made from the year 2001 to 7.9.2005 as furnished by the judgeship are as follows : Sl. Names of employee Date of Nature of Remarks No. appointment appointment 1 Brijesh Kumar Srivastava 16.6.01 Orderly (ad hoc) Ceased on 24.5.05 2 Chandrama Ram 25.6.01 Orderly (ad hoc) 24.5.05 3 Rajesh Kumar 30.6.01 Peon (ad hoc) 24.5.05 4 Bhagwat Singh Bisht 15.2.02 Chowkidar Resigned on (Temporary) 4.9.2002 5 Vinod Kumar Singh 6.9.02 Chowkidar (Temporary) 6 Anurag Srivastava 21.4.03 Peon (ad hoc) Ceased on 24.5.05 7 Bharat Singh 3.1.05 Orderly (appointed under Dying in Harness Rules 1974) 8 Jai Prakash Narayan 3.1.05 Water Man Dwivedi (Temporary) 9 Ram Sajivan Yadav 3.1.05 Chowkidar (Temporary) 10 Rakesh Kumar 15.2.05 Chowkidar (Temporary) 11 Rajendra Ram 15.2.05 Chowkidar (Temporary) 12 Vijay Kumar Yadav 6.8.05 Orderly (appointed under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974) 13 Vijay Kumar 6.8.05 Sweeper (appointed under Dying in Harness Rules,1974) 14 Zulfikar Ahmad 6.10.01 Peon (ad hoc) 15 Rajeev Kumar 10.12.01 Peon (ad hoc) 16 Pawan Kumar 22.11.02 Peon (ad hoc) 17 Dharmendra Ram 28.2.03 Peon (ad hoc) 18 Dinesh Kumar 1.9.04 Peon (ad hoc) 19 Anurag Srivastava 31.5.05 Peon (ad hoc) From the perusal of the record it is revealed that in the case of appointment of Class-IV employee Dinesh Kumar, the then District Judge Sri S.K.Bhatt constituted a selection committee, headed by Sri Pooran Singh, the then Ist, Additional District & Session Judge, Ghazipur, on 11th August 2004. This Committee issued a notice for one post of Class-IV employee of F.T.C. Displayed on the notice board of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, but no advertisement in any news paper appears to have been issued for this recruitment, in accordance with the directions contained in the Circular letter No. 10/2003/J.R.(I) dated March 7,2003. The appointment of Sri Dinesh Kumar to the post of Orderly/Peon in F.T.C. On ad hoc basis on fix term up to 28.2.2005 was made by order of the then, District Judge Sri S.K.Bhstt dated 28.8.2004. The aforementioned details manifest that the appointment made in the regular Courts from Sl. No. 6 to 13 and the appointment in F.T.C., at Sl. The aforementioned details manifest that the appointment made in the regular Courts from Sl. No. 6 to 13 and the appointment in F.T.C., at Sl. No. 5 & 6 have been done after issuance of circular letter No. 10/2003/J.R.(I) dated March 7,2003. By this circular letter direction has been issued to all District Judges that it is mandatory obligation to advertise the post before making appointment of any nature and such advertisement shall be made in two newspapers (0ne Hindi & one English), having wide circulation in the district and the State, at reasonable interval in three consecutive issues, in pursuance to the judgment (dated 19.9.2002) passed in C.M.W.P.No.18151/1997 Girish Lal and others v. District Judge, Ballia and others. It is apparent that the matter of Sri Bharat Singh and Vijay Kumar Yadav is different from other appointees, since they have been appointed under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974. Under these Rules, the advertisement for the post is not necessary. A perusal of record also reveals that Sri Anurag Srivstava son of Sri Badri Prasad Srivastava r/o 235, Hari Nagar,Behind Dogawan Chowki Lucknow-18 was appointed on an dhoc basis on fix pay of Rs. 2550/- as Class IV employee in the judgeship on 24.4.2003, by order of Sri H.P.Tripathi, the then District Judge, Ghazipur. It has been reported that he was ceased on 24.5.2005, (alongwith three others) due to abolition of two N.D.P.S.Courts and was re-appointed on 30.5.2005 by District Judge Sri S.S.Raudra on fix pay of Rs. 2550/- in the F.T.C. Until 28.2.2006 and attached to the Central Nazarat, notwithstanding that the three petitioners of C.M.W.P.No.44390 of 2005 had been working from a date prior to the date of appointment of said Anurag Kumar Srivastava and also had a longer tenure as ad hoc, on the post of orderly, on the ground that there was only one post of peon and Anurag Kumar Srivastava was the only applicant. It may be pertinent to mention that after ceasure of the services of the petitioners they had already moved a joint representation before Hon’ble the A.J. Ghazipur on which his Lordship made the following endorsement to District Judge, Ghazipur. “Kindly consider and take appropriate action.” The representation was received in the office of District Judge on 28.5.2005. It may be pertinent to mention that after ceasure of the services of the petitioners they had already moved a joint representation before Hon’ble the A.J. Ghazipur on which his Lordship made the following endorsement to District Judge, Ghazipur. “Kindly consider and take appropriate action.” The representation was received in the office of District Judge on 28.5.2005. Thus, it cannot be said that only one application of Sri Anurag Kumar Srivastava was to be considered for ad hoc appointment. In his statement, the S.A.O., Sri Raj Naryan as also the Central Nazir Sri Pramod Chandra have stated that no public notice or advertisement of the vacancies was made in any way prior to the appointment made on ad hoc basis. It is therefore apparent that compliance of the directions contained in the circular letter mentioned above has not been made while appointing the aforementioned persons. From the details mentioned above, it is also revealed that four persons namely Jai Praksh Narayan Dwivedi, Ram Sajeevan, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rajendra Ram were appointed in regular Courts after issuance or circular letter mentioned above. Since no public notice or advertisement was issued in respect of the vacancies on which these candidates were appointed, the appointments appear to be in violation of direction contained in the circular letter. All these four appointments were made by Sri B.N. Shukla, the then District Judge, Ghazipur. Dinesh Kumar and Anurag Srivastava were appointed in F.T.C. After issuance or circular letter mentioned above. Since no public notice or advertisement was issued in respect of the vacancies on which these candidates were appointed, these appointments also appears to be in violation of direction contained in the circular letter. These appointments were made by Sri S.S. Rudra, the then District Judge, Ghazipur. It has been further stated by Sri Pramod Chandra, Central Nazir that five persons of Class-IV were promoted to Class-III by internal examination, resulting in five vacancies. He has also said that on the application of persons working on the post o chowkidars they were appointed to the post of orderly & peons, resulting in such posts of chowkidars falling vacant and against these vacancies new persons were appointed to such posts by the District Judge, since it was within his power to do so as no procedure has been prescribed for appointment to the post of chowkidars. From the perusal of papers obtained from District Court, Ghazipur, four chowkidars namely Amar Nath Kushwaha, Bal Mukund Chaturvedi, Iftkharul Imam and Brijesh Kumar Yadav moved applications requesting that they be transferred to the regular posts of orderly/peons. All these applications have been allowed by the then District Judge, on 14.12.2004 and 15.12.2004, transferring these persons from the post of Chowkidar to the vacant posts of orderly/peons. One more chowkidar Sri Vinod Kumar Singh was also transferred as orderly in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act. Five posts of chowkidars thus became vacant and the four appointments mentioned above, were made on such vacancies two on 3.1.2005 and two on 15.2.2005 by Sri B.N.Shukla the then District Judge, Ghazipur. As there is a prescribed procedure for the appointment on vacant posts of orderly & peons, therefore, by transfer of chowkidars on the regular vacant posts of the Class-IV employees, the prescribed procedure of conducting the written test etc for regular appointment on these post has been bye-passed. Adopting such a practice may result in complete elimination of the prescribed procedure in future. On the basis of the facts narrated above it may be concluded as under : 1. “In the appointments of eight Class-IV employees (other than those appointed under U.P. Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974) the procedure prescribed in the Circular letter No. 10/2003J.R.(I) dated March 7, 2003 was not follows. 2. The re-appointment of Sri Anurag Kumar Srivastava as Peon on 31.5.2005 on ad hoc basis in Fast track Court was done by ignoring the claim of petitioners of C.M.W.P.No.44390 of 2005. 3. Regular vacancies on the posts of orderly/peons have been filled by transfer of chowkidars to such posts in order to make appointments on the post of chowkidar for which appointments can be made at the discretion of the District Judge. Submitted for kind perusal and order.” 8. The said report clearly indicates that the re-appointment of Anurag Kumar Srivastava on 31.5.2005 was done in a discriminatory manner and that the circular dated 7.3.2003 issued by this Court was not complied with in the appointment of 8 Class IV employees whose names have been mentioned at Serial No. 6 to 13 and serial Nos. 5 and 6 either in regular Court or in the Fast Track Court. 5 and 6 either in regular Court or in the Fast Track Court. It has also been indicated that Anurag Srivastava son of Badri Prasad Srivastava was a resident of 235 Hari Nagar behind Dogawan Chowki Lucknow-18 and he was appointed on ahoc basis on a fixed period in the year 2003. The report concluded that regular vacancies on the post of orderly/peons have been filled by transfer of chowkidars to such posts in order to make appointments on the post of chowkidar, which appointments have been made at the discretion of the District Judge under Rule 4(3) of 1955 Rules. 9. After the submission of the report it appears that the said facts were brought to the notice of successor Hon’ble the Administrative Judge who on 23.3.2006 called upon the District Judge to furnish information by the following order: “District Judge, Ghazipur. Furnish comments on the representation. Apart from this full details be furnished of staff, who have been appointed without there being any advertisement and without there being any process of selection.” 10. This was followed by a detailed order of the learned Administrative Judge on a representation filed by one Shashi Bhushan Pandey and a direction was issued to the District Judge to take appropriate action in respect of such illegal appointment. The said order dated 6.11.2006 is quoted below: “Much reliance has been placed on the circular letter dated 13.9.2006, qua absorption of surplus employees due to shifting of Court from Ghazipur to Bareilly and Mau. Undoubtedly, surplus staff are to be accommodated/adjusted as per earlier circular letter, but same shall be expendable to incumbents who have been appointed in accordance with law, as per Rules, fulfilling constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 14,16 of the Constitution in public employment and not through back door. Said circular letter cannot be overstretched to those incumbents, whose entry itself is clearly against all settled norms. Persons appointed without recourse to selection proceeding i.e. without advertisement, without facing selection committee are not liable to be appointed/absorbed by any means. Record of other incumbents have also been called for. No process of selection had been undertaken and everything has been dealt with as it was homely affair. No credibility can be attached to the same. Persons appointed without recourse to selection proceeding i.e. without advertisement, without facing selection committee are not liable to be appointed/absorbed by any means. Record of other incumbents have also been called for. No process of selection had been undertaken and everything has been dealt with as it was homely affair. No credibility can be attached to the same. Selection/Appointments in subordinate Courts are governed by Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and U.P. Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in U.P. Rules, 1950. Qua other incumbents also record has been seen. In fact, there is no selection in the eyes of law. District Judge is directed to take appropriate action qua other incumbents who have been appointed without any advertisement and without following due procedure of law, by issuing show cause notice, and thereafter taking follow up action, within next two months.” 11. It appears that the learned District Judge again sought some clarifications from the High Court upon which the learned Administrative Judge passed the following order on 24.3.2007; “This Court on 8.6.2006 has never directed for re-employment of said incumbents, who had been appointed denors the Rules, and this position has been clarified in the order dated 6.11.2006. Inspite of position being clarified, unnecessarily clarification has been asked for. Such clarifications are not solicited. Proceed accordingly.” The learned District Judge thereafter collected the entire information pertaining to Class-IV appointments in the district Judgeship of Ghazipur and through a detailed order dated 16.1.2008 held that the seven employees who were allegedly continuing on ad hoc basis had not been appointed in accordance with Rules and therefore their services were being terminated forthwith. The order of the learned District Judge dated 16.1.2008 is Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. The said order, however, does not adjudicate upon the continuance or otherwise of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005. 12. It was only Anurag Srivastava who was aggrieved by the order of the District Judge dated 16.1.2008 who filed Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008 challenging the said order on the ground that his reply to the notice issued to him has not been considered in correct perspective and the order proceeds on erroneous assumption of facts and law. 12. It was only Anurag Srivastava who was aggrieved by the order of the District Judge dated 16.1.2008 who filed Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008 challenging the said order on the ground that his reply to the notice issued to him has not been considered in correct perspective and the order proceeds on erroneous assumption of facts and law. The petition also alleges that the procedure which was followed in the case of other employees, was not followed in his case and therefore the dispensation of his services is not in accordance with law. 13. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent District Judge in the second petition wherein paragraph 15 thereof recites that the respondents No. 12,13 and 14 as well as some of the other respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis as orderly under Rule 4(3) of the 1955 Rules and therefore there cannot be a comparison of the petitioner Anurag Srivastava with their cases. The counter-affidavit further recites that these three persons namely respondent Nos. 12,13 and 14 (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005) were continuing to work in view of the interim order passed on 9.6.2005 quoted herein above. 14. It is thus to be seen that the claim of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 is distinguishable from the claim of Anurag Srivastava, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008, keeping in view their status of appointment and the manner in which they came to be appointed. However, the determination has to be with regard to the procedure which has to be followed in relation to the nature of the appointments made and the posts against which they claim appointment. 15. Coming to the claim of Anurag Srivastava it is evident that the respondent District Judge in the counter-affidavit admits that the procedure which was required to be followed for the engagement of Anurag Srivastava under the 1955 Rules has admittedly not been followed. Not only Anurag Srivastva but six other employees whose names are referred to in the order dated 16.1.2008 were also not found entitled to be continued keeping in view the fact that their appointments were illegal. 16. Not only Anurag Srivastva but six other employees whose names are referred to in the order dated 16.1.2008 were also not found entitled to be continued keeping in view the fact that their appointments were illegal. 16. Having perused the order dated 16.1.2008 and the reasons given therein there is no manner of doubt that the appointment of Anurag Srivastava was done without following the procedure prescribed under the 1955 Rules or the circular issued by this Court on 7.11.2003 and as noticed by Hon’ble the Administrative Judge in the orders quoted herein above. It is, therefore not necessary for this Court to record any separate reason inasmuch as the reasons given in the order dated 16.1.2008 as well as the facts narrated above fully establish that the appointment of Anurag Srivastava was in violation of the 1955 Rules and without following the procedure as per the circular of this Court. Apart from this the subsequent re-engagement of Anurag Srivastava on 30.5.2005 was also an illegal Act inasmuch as once his services had been terminated on 24.5.2005 there was no occasion to entertain his single application by the then District Judge and accommodate him against the Fast Track Court without following the procedure prescribed for engagement of employees under the F.T.C. Rules as if Anurag Srivastava who hails from Lucknow was a blue eyed boy. 17. In view of what has been stated above Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008 stands dismissed. 18. So far as the claim of three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 is concerned it has been stated in the counter-affidavit to the said writ petition that the petitioners were not entitled to any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing prior to their termination. The facts stated in the counter-affidavit further indicates that the petitioners were working as orderly/peons and therefore their appointment under Rule 4(2) of the 1955 Rules could have been done only after the process provided therein and in terms of the waiting list or by way of transfer. In the instant case the petitioners were engaged as chowkidar/waterman. 19. The petitioners have come out with a clear case that five persons as mentioned in para 20, were juniors to the petitioners and therefore, their continuance brings about discrimination as the petitioners are senior to them. In the instant case the petitioners were engaged as chowkidar/waterman. 19. The petitioners have come out with a clear case that five persons as mentioned in para 20, were juniors to the petitioners and therefore, their continuance brings about discrimination as the petitioners are senior to them. The learned District Judge has denied this but the report of the Registrar (Confidential) dated 7.10.2005 indicates that the engagement of such persons who are referred to in para 20 was not in accordance with the circular dated 7.3.2003 and in view of the law laid down in the case of Girish Lal v. District Judge, Ballia in Writ Petition No. 18151 of 1997 decided on 19.9.2002. While passing the order dated 16.1.2008 the learned District Judge has not entered into the said issue in relation to these three petitioners. The counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 states that the District Judge has purported to consider the claim of these petitioners against future vacancies. The question as to whether the petitioners were given opportunity or not need not detain this case as it is admitted in the counter-affidavit that no notice has been given prior to passing of the order dated 24.5.2005. Secondly, there is no adjudication by the learned District Judge even subsequent thereto in relation to their claim or continuance. This question as to whether the petitioners were appointed against the post in N.D.P.S. Court or the regular Court or against the Special Judge, S.C.//S.T. Court constituted, deserved to be examined by the learned District Judge keeping in view of the observations made herein above and the report of the Registrar (Confidential) dated 7.10.2005. 20. Accordingly the Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 is disposed of with a direction to pass a fresh order in so far as the three petitioners are concerned as the order dated 24.4.2005 had been passed without giving opportunity of hearing. The case of Anurag Srivastava becomes distinguishable on this issue inasmuch as subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition he was given an opportunity and notice and thereafter orders were passed on 16.1.2008. 21. Accordingly Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 is disposed of with a direction to the District Judge to decide the claim of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of this order before him. 21. Accordingly Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 is disposed of with a direction to the District Judge to decide the claim of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of this order before him. The interim protection granted to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 shall continue till final orders are passed by the District Judge. The disposal of this writ petition, does not in any way impede any fresh consideration of appointments in accordance with rules. 22. In view of what has been held above, Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008 is dismissed and Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 is disposed of. —————