JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner Diwakar Singh contends that he holds a valid driving licence and is skilled in his profession and keeping in view his proficiency, honesty and devotion, he applied for being considered to be appointed as a Driver in the establishment of High Court. His complaint is that had there been a proper procedure adopted by the establishment of the High Court, the petitioner could have also been considered but his application appears to have not received any attention even though he had dispatched it by speed post addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. He also made a complaint in his application, a copy whereof is Annexure-2, that the proceedings have been concluded earlier without following any procedure worth the name and hence an appropriate writ be issued in this regard. 2. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that this matter was entertained on 10.2.2010 and the Registrar General of the Court was called upon to file his personal affidavit categorically stating as to whether the procedure for selection on the post of driver had been conducted after publishing any advertisement or not, and if so, then the name of the news paper should be disclosed. Further directions were issued to narrate as to how the applications were entertained directly without any advertisement and, therefore, why should the selections be not declared to be invalid being violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Singh advanced his submissions politely urging that the selections, which have been held without notifying the vacancies, are in contravention of the Allahabad High Court Staff Car Drivers Condition of Service & Conduct Rules 2000. He further submits that the selections are nothing else but the induction of certain selected individuals who had succeeded in getting their applications recommended for consideration and further the selection is in breach of the settled principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in its decisions which Rule that a selection held without notifying the vacancies is in breach of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The submission in essence is that the selection has been held “by the High Court, of the High Court and for the High Court” to the exclusion of the entire public at large. 4. The submission in essence is that the selection has been held “by the High Court, of the High Court and for the High Court” to the exclusion of the entire public at large. The High Court, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, appears to have taken the selections to be a mere appointment of daily labourers and the counter affidavit proceeds to justify the selections taking protection of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and Rule 41 and 45 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules 1976. The selections have the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and are stated to be an outcome of a formal driving test of those, who had succeeded in lodging their applications with strong recommendations. The contention of the petitioner is that a perusal of the counter affidavit indicates that the selection was an outcome more of a subjective satisfaction as recorded in the remarks column of the select list that has been appended alongwith the counter affidavit and it does not reflect any objectivity or following of any procedure or Rule. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such a selection by the highest judicial authority of the State appears to have been finalized by following the law of averages and not by selections on merit. It is contended that such an administration of the process of selection cannot be supported in law. Learned counsel contends that as a man walks by faith and not by mere sight, similarly people abide by law due to faith and not because of its sheer might. Shri Singh contends that if such a procedure is permitted to be followed then the faith of the public at large would be shaken and he reminds us of the famous words of John Henry Newman the 19th Century English Churchman, who said “we can believe what we choose, but we are answerable for what we choose to believe”. Shri Singh submits that records have been perused by this Court and whatever has been brought forth would leave no room for doubt that, if the said selections are a mere public relation exercise, then in that event, they have to be struck down being ultra vires the Constitution as well as the Rules itself. 6. Shri Singh submits that records have been perused by this Court and whatever has been brought forth would leave no room for doubt that, if the said selections are a mere public relation exercise, then in that event, they have to be struck down being ultra vires the Constitution as well as the Rules itself. 6. Shri Amit Sthalekar has placed the entire records that were handed over to him and which he had been called upon to place before the court in order to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the writ petition and the contentions raised in the counter affidavit. Shri Sthalekar submitted that the power of the High Court and Hon’ble the Chief Justice can be spelled out from Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the Chief Justice is the repository of all power which is focused in him and, therefore, there is a strong presumption to be raised in favour of any selections made or appointments offered under the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. He submits that the appointment is not on the post of regular drivers and, therefore, the allegations of not following the procedure prescribed under the Rules 2000 (supra) cannot be pressed into service. However, the counter affidavit justifies the appointments to meet out the urgent need of drivers. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit categorically records that since there was no vacant sanctioned post of a driver that had to be filled up, as such the procedure of direct recruitment under the aforesaid Rules, was not required to be followed. It has also been stated in the said paragraph that no notification was published in the news paper as the engagement was of daily labourer drivers in the establishment. 7. The statement in essence is that since it was a mere casual engagement as a daily labourer such a selection was directly under the control of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the committee appointed by him and such a selection is clearly saved under Rule 41 and Rule 45 of the 1976 Rules (supra). 8. 7. The statement in essence is that since it was a mere casual engagement as a daily labourer such a selection was directly under the control of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the committee appointed by him and such a selection is clearly saved under Rule 41 and Rule 45 of the 1976 Rules (supra). 8. Accordingly after the discussion between Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Judge who is the Chairman of the Staff Car Committee, a formal driving test was conducted from amongst those who had applied, and a list was prepared with the remarks of the performance of each individual candidate who were categorized into good and very good driving. The said report was placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who approved it. 9. When the matter was heard on the last occasion on 18.2.2010 Shri Amit Sthalekar made a statement that even though the selections had been approved, but no letters of appointment had been dispatched nor any of the selected candidates had been permitted to join. He further made a statement on a query being made by the court that so far as the publication of advertisement is concerned, this procedure even for regular engagement has not been adopted under the Rules for any appointment after its promulgation in the year 2000. He further invited the attention of the Court to lists A, B, C, D and E appended alongwith the counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner had not submitted his application which has never reached the High Court and, therefore, there is no ground made out for the petitioner to stake his claim and challenge the selections, which have been held fairly and in conformity with the consistent practice of the High Court. 10. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the allegations in the counter affidavit and reiterating the submissions raised and certain decisions have been cited to substantiate the said submissions. 11. Before embarking on the factual inquiry, the mist over the legal position, canvassed at the Bar, has to cleared. 10. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the allegations in the counter affidavit and reiterating the submissions raised and certain decisions have been cited to substantiate the said submissions. 11. Before embarking on the factual inquiry, the mist over the legal position, canvassed at the Bar, has to cleared. Article 229 of the Constitution of India is as follows : “Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts.—(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the state may by Rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the Rule no person not already attached to the Court shall appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make Rules for the purpose: Provided that the Rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. (3) The administrative expenses of a High court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.” 12. The Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules 1976 have been framed and duly notified. Rule 4 which prescribes the source of recruitment of Class IV posts is quoted below : “Source of recruitment to Class IV posts.—The sources of recruitment to the various class IV posts in the establishment shall be as follows : (a) Peon, farrash collied, bhisti, sweeper, mali, fireman chowkidar and liftman:- By direct recruitment as provided in Rule (Provided that in making such recruitment preference shall first be given to suitable persons already engaged by the High Court as daily Labourers. If after making recruitment from this source some vacancies are left unfilled for want of suitable persons, the remaining vacant posts shall be filled by inviting applications through Employment Exchange.) (b) Jamadar.—By promotion from amount permanent peons. (c) Daftari.—By promotion from amongst permanent peons, farrashes and liftman; Provided that for the post daftari only such persons shall be eligible who, to the satisfaction of the appointing authority, possess requisite knowledge and experience of the work of book binding. (d) Bundle Lifter.—By promotion from amongst permanent peon, farrashes and liftmen. (e) Head Mali.—By promotion from amongst permanent malis, provided a suitable person is available; otherwise, by direct recruitment of a person possessing requisite knowledge and experience of gardening and ability to supervise the work of malis.” There is a provision in Rule 25 of the 1976 Rules about the maximum age to be possessed by a candidate for being appointed as a Class Iv or Class III employee, which prescribes it as 35 years on the first day of July of the Year in which the advertisement is published. 13. Rule 41 prescribes the residuary powers of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, quoted below : “Residuary powers.—Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters, incidental or ancillary to these Rules, not specifically provided for herein, or in regad to matter as have not been sufficiently provided for :” 14. Rule 45 is the discretionary power of Hon’ble Chief Justice which prevails notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules. The same is quoted below : “Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Chief Justice shall have the power to make such orders, as he may consider fit, in respect of recruitment promotion, confirmation or any other matter.” 15. There were no separate posts for drivers and as such a cadre was created with the sanction of the State Government which necessitated the framing of the Allahabad High Court Staff Car Drivers (Condition of Service & Conduct) Rules, 2000. There were no separate posts for drivers and as such a cadre was created with the sanction of the State Government which necessitated the framing of the Allahabad High Court Staff Car Drivers (Condition of Service & Conduct) Rules, 2000. The only procedure for recruitment provided for, is contained in Rule 14 thereof which is quoted below : “Direct Recruitment.—(1) Whenever recruitment is to be made to the post of Drivers the appointing authority shall notify the vacancies in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Chief Justice from time to time in this behalf. (2) For the purpose of direct recruitment there shall be a Selection Committee comprising of at least three members to be nominated by the Chief Justice. (3) The Selection Committee shall scrutinize the applications and require the eligible candidates to appear in the test and interview. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates in order of merit on the basis of marks obtained by them in the test and interview : Provided that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these Rules, in making such recruitment preference shall be given to suitable persons already engaged by the High Court as Daily Labourer Drivers. If after making recruitment from this source some vacancies are left unfilled for vacant posts shall be filled as provided above in this Rule.” 16. The said Rules again reiterate the powers of Hon’ble the Chief Justice at par with Rule 41 and 45 in the 1976 Rules referred to hereinabove by incorporating Rule 23 & 25 in the Rules 2000 which are quoted hereinbelow : “23. Residuary Powers.—Nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such order, from time to time, as he may deem fit, in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these Rules not specifically provided for herein or in this regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for: 25. General Rules.—Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Chief Justice shall have the power to make such orders, as he may consider fit, in respect of recruitment, promotion, confirmation or any other matter.” 17. A perusal of the entire scheme as codified in relation to the controversy involved would indicate that Rules for appointment on the post of drivers have already been framed and, therefore, the field is not unoccupied. A perusal of the entire scheme as codified in relation to the controversy involved would indicate that Rules for appointment on the post of drivers have already been framed and, therefore, the field is not unoccupied. However, there are no indications of any separate cadre of daily labourer drivers defined under the Rules. The said designation of daily labourer occurs in the proviso of Rule 14. It may be noticed that the post of a driver has been described of the status of a Class IV post as per Rule 2 of 2000 Rules. There is no separate procedure provided for the engagement of a daily labourer or a daily labourer driver. Rule 4 of the 1976 Rules and the proviso to Rule 14 of the 2000 Drivers Rules both refer to a preference being given to daily labourers/daily labourers drivers at the time of making recruitment to permanent posts. There is one distinction namely that in Rule 4 of the 1976 Rules the word preference has been qualified by the word “shall first be given to suitable persons already engaged by the High Court as daily labourers” whereas in Rule 14 of 2000 Drivers Rules, the word “first” is missing. None-the-less both the Rules indicate that recruitment of other candidates shall be made only if some of the posts remain unfilled after making recruitment from these preferential sources as indicted hereinabove. 18. Thus there is no doubt that the Rules create an embargo for making selections by direct recruitment against class IV posts, and preferentially and primarily limit it to be a selection from amongst the already engaged daily labourers/daily labourers drivers. This preferential right, as indicated in the Rules, therefore, creates a legitimate expectation in favour of such candidates, who are already engaged as daily labourers/daily labourer drivers. It is on the strength of such a qualification that they become the feeding source of recruitment and it is only when they are found unsuitable, that persons from the open market have to be considered. The Rule, therefore, creates a strong caveat in favour of the power to be exercised by the High Court and the Hon’ble Chief Justice for making appointment against class IV and Class III vacancies, as referred to in the Rules from such special category candidates to the exclusion of others. If the Rules are spelt out, then the administration is bound by it. If the Rules are spelt out, then the administration is bound by it. As long as a word remains unspoken, you are its master; once you utter it, you are its slave. 19. The Rules, create a special category of candidates for direct recruitment with a substantial preferential right which places them in a special class as against the candidates from the open market. This right created in favour of such a candidate compels the selecting authority to choose within the same category first and in the event the posts remain unfilled then the general Rule has to be followed. The language of the aforesaid Rules is, therefore, couched in a language that creates a protective shield which is almost impregnable. The expectation is not merely legitimate but is almost in the nature of a cast iron provision. It is thus clear that a daily labourer or a daily labourer driver is engaged not merely for continuing on a casual daily wage basis but he is engaged so as to form the pool of candidates who have a right to be considered preferentially in the first place to the exclusion of the candidates from the open market. This Rule, therefore, is a shirt of iron, clothed with which a daily labourer/daily labourer driver of the High Court prevents and rather prohibits the consideration of any of the candidates from open market. This right to pre empt the open market candidates almost to their exclusion places such daily labourers/drivers on a higher pedestal thereby creating a class within a class. 20. Can such a right so created under Rules be construed to be a mere formality which does not require to be in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer to this question will be required to be given keeping in view the mandate of this Court and the Supreme Court which has time and again been reiterated to the effect as to whether such a Rule can be pressed into service in teeth of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. Having heard the arguments at length I am of the considered and firm opinion that Rule 14 of the 2000 Rules backed up with Rules 23 and 25 proceed to create a cadre of daily labourer drivers. 21. Having heard the arguments at length I am of the considered and firm opinion that Rule 14 of the 2000 Rules backed up with Rules 23 and 25 proceed to create a cadre of daily labourer drivers. It may not be a formal creation of a cadre within the true meaning of the word “cadre” as understood in service jurisprudence, but the impact is clearly to bring into existence a reserve pool of drivers who shall be the first source from which the direct recruitment has to be made. The formation of such a pool and the conferment of such a right, therefore, also raises a legitimate expectation in the public at large for engagement as a daily labourer or a daily labourer driver. This expectation has a firm foundation inasmuch as a person who succeeds in becoming a candidate as a daily labourer or daily labourer driver has a substantial guarantee in his favour for being considered to be directly recruited on the post. The foundations therefore, for such direct recruitment are laid when such engagement under the caption of daily labourer/daily labourer drivers are made. The consequence of such engagement is therefore a substantive promise to provide employment. I would not be wrong in my view if the word “reservation” is used to connote a right in favour of such persons. If such is the nature of engagement, which almost creates a permanent security of employment, which is virtually in the nature of an undertaking, then in my opinion such an engagement should also conform to the principles of the equality clause, as contained in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. Once having found this, even if the Hon’ble Chief Justice is proceeding to exercise his residuary powers under Rule 23 or the general Rules under Rule 25, the same also has to conform to the mandate of Articles 14 & 16. There can be exceptions in matters of grave urgency or emergency where the Hon’ble Chief Justice may have to exercise his powers under Rule 25 of the 2000 Rules but such powers may not be required to be exercised even for the purpose of a normal engagement. To interpret an absolute power to be exercised for such recruitment of class-IV employees would be to keep the letter of the law without its spirit. To interpret an absolute power to be exercised for such recruitment of class-IV employees would be to keep the letter of the law without its spirit. An exception can be made where there is such an emergency that the necessity may not require the fulfilment of all such procedures and for that a selection will have to be made on the principle “the necessity knows no law”. The drivers were required as per the chart enclosed. However the reduction in the number of Judges has not been indicated separately. The engagement has to be proportional if that is of a daily labourer driver more so when admittedly all sanctioned posts are full. This requirement was existing for long according to the High Court and there was no immediate urgency that had cropped up so as to exercise an extra ordinary power. To my mind there is no element of any extra-ordinary or emergent or urgent situation for invoking such powers. If the High Court was aware in advance it could have followed the procedure to complete selections. But it appears that there are circumstances that overpower one’s authority. 23. This, however, cannot be the normal Rule of interpretation. To proceed with one’s own principles and ignore the law would be law unto oneself. To interpret the said Rules as an absolute power would be to give it an unreal meaning which would reflect selectivity and a self serving interest. 24. There are many authorities which are befitting the occasion but the authority directly in issue which occurs to the mind forthwith is the case or Puttaswamy H.C. v. Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, 1991 Suppl. 2 SCC 421. In the said case Article 229 of the Constitution of India was interpreted and the status, powers and the administrative independence of the Chief Justice was considered in detail and the judgment of the High Court was upheld even though the illegal appointments which had continued for almost a decade were on human considerations saved. None-the-less the Supreme Court Ruled that the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the administrative independence of the High Court or the Chief Justice does not extend beyond the parameters laid down in the constitution. 25. None-the-less the Supreme Court Ruled that the powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the administrative independence of the High Court or the Chief Justice does not extend beyond the parameters laid down in the constitution. 25. Such matters have not only been engaging the attention of this Court in relation to the appointments in the High Court but also in relation to appointments in the subordinate courts where a similar nature of discretion is spelt out in favour of the District Judge for making Class IV appointments. The word discretion has been widely interpreted and without relying on a plethora of judgments it would be appropriate to cite the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and others, 2006(10) SCC 1 where the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 onwards has laid down the parameters of administrative and judicial discretion both. A perusal of the said authority would leave no room for doubt that discretion has to be exercised in accordance with law and not bereft of it. The discretion should exercised in a manner that enhances the faith of the public in the Rule of law. The Rule of law can be upheld only if it is strictly complied with and at the same time is tempered with justice. One will have to keep in mind the principle that mercy to the guilty may be cruelty to the people. Napoleon the First while discussing his code in his council said “to be just is not simply doing right, the governed must be convinced that it is right” 26. It is true that while interpreting a provision one has to doubt the correctness of an opinion as doubting one’s own first principle is the mark of a civilized man. The judiciary has to be careful while interpreting its own laws as even a doubtful accusation leaves a stain behind. The law should be correctly interpreted and implemented for if the vessel be not pure, what you pour in will become sour. It is well said that doubt is the key of knowledge but knowledge breeds more doubt about one’s ignorance. 27. The law should be correctly interpreted and implemented for if the vessel be not pure, what you pour in will become sour. It is well said that doubt is the key of knowledge but knowledge breeds more doubt about one’s ignorance. 27. In the instant case there is no doubt that the Rules, as discussed aforesaid, have to conform to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as they create a right even in favour of a daily labourer or a daily labourer driver. One of the facets of Article 14 in service jurisprudence has been to include the process of publication and advertisement as part of the process of selection that conforms to the aforesaid provisions of the constitution. There is no dearth of authorities to that extent and the following judgment would suffice for the same : 28. State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, 2009 (5) SCC 65 . 29. Apart from the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has very lately upheld a similar view taken by a Division Bench of our Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State in Writ Petition No. 3790 of 2004 decided on 29.4.2007. The SLP against the same was dismissed by a Speaking order being Civil Appeal No. 1139 of 2010 decided on 29.1.2010. 30. In the instant case the selections have been proceeded without any notification of the vacancies or the proposal to engage daily labourer drivers and the counter affidavit admits of not having published any such advertisement. This in my opinion is in violation of Rule 14 as also in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The public at large had every right to apply for being engaged as a daily labourer driver in view of the findings recorded hereinabove that such an engagement creates a vested right of consideration on first preference basis, and the public at large cannot be denied this equality of opportunity of employment. The procedure, therefore, has to be followed in conformity with the Rules to make the process of selection free and fair even if it relates to a daily labourer under Rule 4 of the 1976 Rules or Rule 14 of the 2000 Rules. The procedure, therefore, has to be followed in conformity with the Rules to make the process of selection free and fair even if it relates to a daily labourer under Rule 4 of the 1976 Rules or Rule 14 of the 2000 Rules. The operation of Rule 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules and Rules 23 & 25 of the 2000 Rules cannot militate against the mandate of publishing an advertisement and notifying the vacancies as contained in the Rules meant for direct recruitment even in the case of daily labourer drivers. 31. The argument at first flush that the engagement of daily labourer does not require advertisement may appear to be attractive but the same is totally unfit for the occasion at hand. Apart from this the constitution bench decision in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 further whittles down the engagements of daily wagers through side lanes and then their regularization through back door methods. The decision has deprecated the same. It will have to be seen as to whether Rule 14 of the 2000 Rules as worded conforms to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid constitution bench decision or not. 32. Coming to the facts of this case in relation to the procedure adopted, the records that have been produced speak for themselves. The applications which have been entertained without any advertisement they have all been received by hand barring a couple of them which may have been sent by other sources. Most of the applications are backed up by the recommendations of Hon’ble sitting Judges of this Court. One application has been strongly recommended by a retired Hon’ble Judge of this Court. The candidates, who have been selected and whose names are referred to in the select list are Rakesh Kumar Maurya, whose application was received on 14.1.2010. Mr. Rupesh Kumar had allegedly sent his application way back on 18th December, 2009. The application of Anoop Kumar is undated and so is the application of Surendra Yadav. The application of Vijay Kumar Maurya was sent on 7.12.2009 and that of Pradeep Kumar Yadav is undated. The application of S.K. Modenwal is also undated and so is the application of Mohd. Anees. A non selected candidate Arun Kumar Dubey had got his application recommended by an Hon. Judge on 17.4.2009. The application of Vijay Kumar Maurya was sent on 7.12.2009 and that of Pradeep Kumar Yadav is undated. The application of S.K. Modenwal is also undated and so is the application of Mohd. Anees. A non selected candidate Arun Kumar Dubey had got his application recommended by an Hon. Judge on 17.4.2009. Other applications also reflect the same scene. This being the manner of entertaining applications, therefore, indicates that all these applications were entertained as and when the occasion suited with recommendations by Hon’ble Judges. This fact of recommendations by Hon’ble Judges has been noted in the report put up before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for approval. 33. From the counter affidavit it appears that the selections were held of about 20 candidates, who were put to a driving test by the Dy. Registrar Staff Car. A permission was sought by him for constituting a team of Drivers to assist him to carry out the said driving test. A team of 8 drivers was constituted and the driving test was held by the Dy. Registrar Staff Cars with the help of said drivers and a report was furnished to the Hon’ble Chairman Staff Cars for an interview. The only material which is available on the record are the lists, which were prepared indicating the remarks as good driving or very good driving. There is nothing to indicate as to what was the exact driving test undertaken. Whether it was by a short run or a long drive or a circle around the fountain or mere shift of gears. There is nothing to indicate the minimum of objectivity and the report of the Deputy Registrar Staff Car is totally blank on this score. The Deputy Registrar Staff Cars submitted a report on 16.1.2010 which indicates some document described as flag ‘A’. However, such a document is not available on the record. The Hon’ble Chairman Staff Cars committee submitted a report before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice that the selection has been held as per discussion and the Hon’ble Chairman has also taken notice of the recommendations made by the Hon’ble Judges in respect of such applications. This report was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who approved it on 28.1.2010 by the following order : “For the present drivers who have been rated as ‘very good driving’ i.e. Sl. Nos. This report was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who approved it on 28.1.2010 by the following order : “For the present drivers who have been rated as ‘very good driving’ i.e. Sl. Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 of the List ‘A’ at Allahabad and Md. Anis son of Md. Hassan at Delhi be engaged as D.L. drivers.” 34. A perusal of the said approval indicates that six candidates out of the list submitted by the selecting body were approved and whose names have been referred to hereinabove. Apart from these six persons who had undergone the alleged driving test one Anees Ahmad Son of Hasan has also been directly appointed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice who does not appear to have undergone the test conducted by the selecting body inasmuch as his name does not appear in any of the lists, which were prepared by the selecting body. 35. After the aforesaid 7 appointments were approved by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the matter appears to have been again placed before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice with a report dated 9.2.2010 that one candidate namely S.K. Modenwal had been left out even though he had demonstrated very good driving during the test which was approved by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice on 10.2.2010. 36. What is reflected from the aforesaid records is that six candidates were proposed by the selecting body whereas Anees Ahmad had not been proposed at all. He was directly inducted on 28.1.2010 to be appointed and posted at Delhi. The 8th candidate was approved by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice subsequently on the ground that he had also been adjudged as a very good driver but his name had been wrongly left out. The aforesaid facts, therefore, demonstrate that the engagements were not a continuous process of selection and there are adjustments which have been made with elements of outsourcing and parachuting of candidates. One candidate has been posted at Delhi without indication of his duties outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, accused the court of talking on principle and acting on interest. 37. There is another remarkable feature about the selections and that is a team of 8 drivers that was constituted describing them as the most experienced and senior drivers of the establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, accused the court of talking on principle and acting on interest. 37. There is another remarkable feature about the selections and that is a team of 8 drivers that was constituted describing them as the most experienced and senior drivers of the establishment. I have perused the list of permanent drivers which has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit, out of who Bal Mukund Mishra is at serial number 18, Mohd Azam is at serial 31, Panna Lal is at Sl. No. 38 Ashok Kumar Dubey is at Sl. No. 55, Sapan Kumar Pal is at Sl. No. 56 and Chandra Bhushan Maurya is at Serial No. 58. The said seniority which extends to serial number 58 is self explanatory and in my opinion is a random selection which cannot be in any way termed as a team constituted by way of seniority and experience. I have to firmly record this finding that one of the candidates, even though not selected, namely Ashok Kumar, happens to be the son of Panna Lal who was one of the drivers of the said selection team. There may be others, who are related to each other but more the inquiry is made, the more discrepancies might surface. 38. A word may be stated about the process of selecting a driver. A driver has to operate a vehicle smoothly backed up by consistent and not erratic decisions. He can do this only through practice and training and not theory. Paper work is no proof of efficiency. The safe and efficient movement of a vehicle is his priority for which he depends on a good physique, sharp visual inputs and information through physical sensation of movement. While driving a vehicle and negotiating traffic and roads, forces act on his muscles and sensory organs. The speeding, slowing and turning of a vehicle are not only sensed visually but also physically by the driver’s body as the vehicle accelerates, decelerates and changes course. Different vehicles have vastly different performance characteristics that affect a driver while on the wheels. With the introduction of new age highly mechanized and sensitive vehicles, a driver has to have sufficient expertise for operations. A driver by his efficiency should enjoy the confidence of the other occupiers of the vehicle. The High Court requires drivers for constitutional functionaries and their families. With the introduction of new age highly mechanized and sensitive vehicles, a driver has to have sufficient expertise for operations. A driver by his efficiency should enjoy the confidence of the other occupiers of the vehicle. The High Court requires drivers for constitutional functionaries and their families. The nature of the requirement therefore can neither be underestimated or downplayed by engaging fresh hands without gauging their expertise appropriately. To assess a driver is to be sure of his visual, physical and mental abilities but on top of it all, his driving attitude and abilities. Those who occupy the hind seat should not be left to the mercy of a half-skilled or semi-skilled driver. They do not have to as they are not supposed to, keep an alert watch on their hooks peeping in between from the seats, to have a glimpse of what is ahead through the front wind shield, nor are they supposed to all the time keep a constant gaze on the speedometer needle. 39. All this has to be taken care of at the time when drivers are finally inducted into the stream. The driving test has therefore to be vigorous and not a mere formality or a public relation exercise. It has to be by experts who can themselves understand the minimum of traffic signs under the Motor Vehicles Rules and also the attitude of driving. There are many who don’t care for bumping over rumbling strips and taking a wrong turn. Small mistakes at times convert into big disasters. The Court or Judges are not the appointed experts for assessing technical capabilities but they can definitely review a selection under the parameters of law. They cannot impose their personal experience but they can certainly share it to supplement the choice to be made. 40. One can conveniently refer to the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 for guidance. The same provides for the existence of basic knowledge for grant of licence. It is an exhaustive list of do’s and don’t’s. Rule 11 to 15 is illustrative of the said list. The course and syllabus for imparting instructions in driving including theory, traffic education, driving practice, vehicle mechanism and repari, public relations are exhaustively dealt with in Rule 31. These are pre-requisites of a licence. One wonders whether they are observed religiously or in their full breach before a license is granted. 41. The course and syllabus for imparting instructions in driving including theory, traffic education, driving practice, vehicle mechanism and repari, public relations are exhaustively dealt with in Rule 31. These are pre-requisites of a licence. One wonders whether they are observed religiously or in their full breach before a license is granted. 41. The Rules therefore as a measure of law assume that amount of knowledge to be possessed by a person professing himself to be a driver. Any one, therefore, authorised to carry out a driving test should himself, therefore, be acquainted with such matters. 42. There is another reason to mention the Rules. They require a person possessed of a license to at least know and follow traffic signs mentioned therein. We are moving ahead with highways and express ways and, therefore, a driver is reasonably expected to understand traffic signs, even if he is not academically very sound. These traffic signs are contained in Schedule 1 of the 1988 Rules. They include 36 Mandatory Signs in Part A, 37 Cautionary signs in Part-B, and 22 Informatory signs in Part-C. 43. The duties of a driver at the High Court attached to an Hon’ble Judge or an officer on duty is onerous and extends even to odd hours. They have to undertake long journeys or even day long and late night duties. Their alertness is, therefore, to be of a very high qualitative complexion. Their visual and mental alertness has to be impeccable and their reflexes have to be sharp enough to commit the minimum of errors. It is for this reason that the 1988 Rules hint at an exhaustive test. 44. A driver having a license for 3 years can be presumed to have been authorized to drive a vehicle but that by itself is no guarantee of his expertise. Over and above this his attitude and personality should reflect obedience and endurance. All these factors are just some for mention and there can be a lot others for the selecting body to define. You don’t need to eat a whole lamb to be able to tell what mutton tastes like. It is enough if you eat a cutlet. But you should eat that. You cannot, however, judge the wine by the barrel. This scrutiny is necessary because the ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with incompetent people. 45. It is enough if you eat a cutlet. But you should eat that. You cannot, however, judge the wine by the barrel. This scrutiny is necessary because the ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with incompetent people. 45. The court has taken pains to assess the entire gamut of facts which have been placed upon exchange of affidavits between the petitioner and the High Court as this was necessary to draw a firm conclusion before proceeding to pass any order. I am, therefore, satisfied that the apprehension expressed by this Court in the order dated 10.2.2010 was not unfounded and the entire process of selection appears to be vitiated for non compliance of appropriate procedure for holding the selection for the post of a daily labourer driver. 46. Accordingly the respondent-High Court is restrained from giving effect to the selections in any manner whatsoever. The selected candidates are reported to have not been issued any letters of appointment so far nor have they been permitted to join. Accordingly the High Court shall neither issue any letters of appointment to such selected candidates nor shall they be permitted to join or receive any benefits arising out of the selections. 47. The matter could have been finally disposed of as the affidavits have been exchanged and the records have been perused. However, there are matters of more serious concern, which have arisen out of this case and which will have a direct bearing on all such recruitments adopted by the High Court. The matter, therefore, requires to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice for his Lordship’s kind consideration to constitute a larger bench for the consideration of defining the powers under Rule 23 and 25 of the 2000 Drivers Rules, referred to above, and also to gauge the extent thereof in the light of Rule 41 and 45 of the 1976 Rules. This is necessary also inasmuch as the issue of exercise of discretion of such powers, which are vested in the District Judge under the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules 1955, to be particular Rule 4 thereof, are already engaging the attention of this Court in matters relating to ad hoc engagement in the subordinate courts, reference whereof has been made in Writ Petition No. 6331 of 2010. The Court cannot afford to be a diplomat who thinks twice before he says nothing. But the Court has to be cautious of the sensitivity of the issue. The balance has to be struck by applying the principle that you get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it. When one obeys his superior, one simultaneously instructs his inferior. This exercise is, therefore, urgent for it is too late to cover the well when the child is drowned. The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater their power to harm us. 48. There is another legal impediment which I consider necessary to be removed before the matter is finally disposed of in view of the view expressed by the Apex Court in paragraph 63 of the decision in the case of Sadanand Halo v. Mumtaz Ali Shekh, 2008(4) SCC 616, is quoted below : “The course taken in inviting objections of selected candidates who were never bothered to be made parties to the writ petitions is not satisfactory. The Single Judge, after realising the fact that selected candidates were not joined as a party, though the selections lists were available to the petitioner, had merely advertised about the dates of hearing of the petitions and few of the selected candidates approached the High Court, they were not even supplied with the pleadings or the copies of the petitions in time. All this amounted to denial of an appropriate opportunity to the selected candidates. All this has been dealt with by both the courts below and particularly the Division Bench in a very casual manner holding that the decisions relied on by the appellants were individual cases. Even if they were so, the principles stated in those cases regarding the natural justice were most apposite.” 49. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court, I find it necessary that all the 8 selected candidates be impleaded as party-respondents Nos. 3 to 10 for which appropriate steps be taken within 10 days. The addresses of all the selected candidates are indicated in the lists prepared by the respondents, except that of Anees Ahmad whose address from the records appears to be Rajvanshi Nagar Road No.2, Extension Post Office Shashtri Nagar, District Patna (Bihar). 50. The notices shall indicate that the matter shall be listed for further consideration on 22nd March, 2010. The addresses of all the selected candidates are indicated in the lists prepared by the respondents, except that of Anees Ahmad whose address from the records appears to be Rajvanshi Nagar Road No.2, Extension Post Office Shashtri Nagar, District Patna (Bihar). 50. The notices shall indicate that the matter shall be listed for further consideration on 22nd March, 2010. The affidavits may be filed by the selected candidates within the aforesaid period. 51. Let the records of this case be placed before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for consideration for referring the matter to a larger bench as the issue raised is one of great public importance and a similar issue is also engaging the attention of this Court in writ petition No. 6331 of 2010. The records produced have been handed over to the learned counsel for the High Court Sri Amit Sthalekar with a direction that the same shall be safely restored by the Registrar General to be produced as and when required. ————