JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Veer Singh for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Though the case was called in the revised list but none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. Five petitioners working as Class IV employees in District Judgeship Ghaziabad have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23rd January, 1990/5th February, 1990 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) laying down minimum criteria for promotion to Class III post from the employees working in Class IV. It has also sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider petitioners for promotion as Class III employee on the basis of select list (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). 3. The case of petitioners is that they had completed more than eight years of service as Class IV employee in Ghaziabad Judgship. Petitioner No. 1 was working as Daftari and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were Aradali attached with different courts in Judgeship. The promotion of Class IV to Class III employees is governed by Government Order dated 1.1.1970 whereunder quota was 10% which got increased to 15% vide Government Order dated 31st August, 1982. 4. In the year 1987, there were six vacancies of Clerks liable to be filled in by promotion from Class IV employees. A selection test was held on 2nd February, 1987 wherein petitioners and some other participated and petitioners were declared successful. A copy of the select list dated 6.4.1988 is Annexure 2 wherein petitioners at serial No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In fact it appears that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 secured similar marks hence were shown 5th in merit and 7 and 8 also secured same marks hence shown 6th in merit. The District Judge, however, promoted only respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on ad hoc basis hence the petitioners made representations claiming their promotions also. It further says that two promotions were made beyond select list and representations were made on 8th June, 1987 and 9th September, 1988. Later on the respondents hold a general test on 28th and 29th January, 1989 in which petitioners did not appear since they had already appeared in the selection test and were successful therein. They continued to make their representations claiming promotion. Later on the respondents hold a general test on 28th and 29th January, 1989 in which petitioners did not appear since they had already appeared in the selection test and were successful therein. They continued to make their representations claiming promotion. It is said that later on after receiving some report from Nazarat, District Judge passed an order on 5th February, 1990 stating that applicants may appear in examination if they want to be considered for promotion. This nullify the earlier selection list, therefore, petitioners have come up to this Court challenging report of Nazarat, on which District Judge passed the order dated 5th February, 1990. 5. A supplementary counter-affidavit sworn on 9th March, 1992 by Sri Har Nath Singh the then Civil Judge was also filed stating that mere placement in select list does not confer any right to claim promotion and that petitioners cannot claim selection and appointment since they have to wait for their chance in future as there is no vacancy in existence. 6. On behalf of respondent No. 1, a counter-affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri Har Nath Singh Sengar, VIth Addl. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, admitting that no automatic promotion from Class IV to Class III is permissible but a Class IV employee, on completion of 5 years service, may be considered after selection test for promotion to Class III post. No examination of Class IV employee for promotion to Class III was held on 2nd February, 1987 but in fact it was held on 2.12.1987 and the merit list was issued on 6.4.1988. So far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, it is said that they appeared in a test held on 6th June, 1987 wherein they obtained more than 50% marks and were declared successful hence appointed by the then District Judge vide order dated 6th June, 1987 on the basis of the said result. Respondent No. 4, it is said, was promoted by the then District Judge vide order dated 27th August, 1987. On the application of petitioners, the Officer Incharge, Nazarat was directed to hold examination giving due information to all concerned employees. The petitioners did not raise any protest while appearing in examination held on 2.12.1987 and there was no occasion to ask petitioners to appear in the fresh test. Rest of the matters, as stated in the writ petition, are not denied. The petitioners did not raise any protest while appearing in examination held on 2.12.1987 and there was no occasion to ask petitioners to appear in the fresh test. Rest of the matters, as stated in the writ petition, are not denied. But it is said that order dated 23rd January, 1990 and 5th February, 1990 are correct. It is said that discretion to fix minimum standard for judging suitability of candidates is of District Judge and petitioners were not entitled to get promotion within select list dated 6.4.1988. It is also said that some vacancies are lying which are to be filled in by holding fresh selection. 7. On 1st September, 1999, the matter was heard to some extent by Hon’ble O.P. Garg, J and having considered rival submissions, in particular argument advanced on behalf of petitioners that respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were appointed without selection and they are outsiders, the Court passed order seeking information from the respondent No. 1 to the following effect: “With a view to put to an end the controversy and for the better appreciation of the facts, it is directed that Sri K.R.Sirohi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Judge, Ghaziabad shall obtain the following information on an affidavit to be sworn-in by a responsible officer of Ghaziabad Judgeship : 1. The number of posts advertised to hold the recruitment to class III Cadre. 2. The number of posts available in the quota earmarked to be filled by promotion of Class IV employees. 3. Number of direct recruits who were selected for appointment. A copy of select list as well as the Roster prepared according to the Government Orders shall also be filed. 4. Whether respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are from amongst the selected candidates or were appointed beyond the selected list. 5. Number of Class IV employees who had been appointed on promotion to Class III candre. 6. Whether in the near future any examination is to be take place for recruitment in Class III Cadre and, if so, how many vacancies are likely to be filled by promotion of Class IV employee. List this case in the week commencing 27th September, 1999.” 8. 6. Whether in the near future any examination is to be take place for recruitment in Class III Cadre and, if so, how many vacancies are likely to be filled by promotion of Class IV employee. List this case in the week commencing 27th September, 1999.” 8. In purported compliance of above order, respondent No. 1 filed a supplementary counter-affidavit stating that as per record available in the Judgeship, process of recruitment was initiated under order dated 11th July, 1988 passed by the then District Judge. There were 33 vacancies in Class III at that time for which regular selection was to be held and hence the then District Judge Sri O.P.Garg passed an order for advertisement of vacancies. The advertisement was published on 4th October, 1988 and requisition also sent to Employment Exchange on 23rd September, 1988. The select list was finally prepared on 9th February, 1989 as per roster which included 70 candidates out of which 35 in waiting list. Paras 8 and 9 of supplementary counter-affidavit gave certain details of promotion in Class III posts in which there was apparently several inconsistencies hence, I find it appropriate to reproduce the said averment itself hereat: “8. That it may be stated here that the Senior Administrative Officer, Ghaziabad, had submitted a report on 22.12.1989 to the then District Judge, Ghaziabad, informing that vide order dt. 5.8.85, eight employees belonging to class-IV cadre were promoted to class-III cadre of employees. Again on 4.6.1987 two employees of class-IV cadre were promoted to class-III cadre, and again by order dt. 27.8.1987 one class-IV employee was promoted to class-III cadre. Further by order dt. 6.4.1988 a list of eight class-IV employees was prepared, who were found eligible to be promoted to class-III cadre, out of the said list one person was given appointment in class-III cadre. Thus, in between the years 1985 and 1988, twelve employees of class-IV cadre were promoted to class-III cadre. In the year 1989, 50 appointments were made in class-III cadre, out of which 48 were appointed by way of direct recruitment and remaining two by way of promotion from class-IV cadre, taking the total number of appointees by promotion in between the years 1983 and 1989, to 14. On the basis of the report of the Senior Administrative Officer dt. On the basis of the report of the Senior Administrative Officer dt. 22.12.1989, it may be stated that 95 appointments were made in class-III cadre in between the years 1983 and 1989 and out of which fourteen fell in the quota to be filled by promotion, which, as indicated above, was duly filled. For the convenient perusal of this Hon’ble Court, a copy of the report dated 22.12.1989 of the Senior Administrative Officer is being filed herewith as Annexure No. S.C.a.VI. 9. That so far as the status of respondents 2, 3 and 4 is concerned, it may not be out of place to mention her that the said three persons were selected after an examination held for the purpose and were included in the select list dated 6.6.1987 prepared for the purpose of making appointment/recruitment by way of promotion in class-III cadre from the employees of class-IV cadre, thus, they are duly selected candidates. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed from out of the select list dated 6.6.1987 by the order of the then District Judge dated 6.6.1987 the respondent No. 2 was appointed as paid apprentice in the court of Civil Judge while the respondent No. 3 was appointed in the court of Munsif Ghaziabad as paid apprentice, and the respondent No. 4 was also appointed under the order of the then District Judge dated 27.8.1987 on the basis of select list, which was prepared on 6.6.87. For the convenient perusal of this Hon’ble Court, photo copy of the select list containing the endorsement of the orders passed by the then District Judge providing appointment to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and a copy of the order of the then District Judge, Ghaziabad, dated 27.8.1987 in respect of appointment of respondent No. 4 are being filed herewith as Annexure No. S.C.A. VII and S.C.A. VIII respectively.” 9. It shows that on 5th August, 1985, eight Class IV employees were promoted to Class III. Thereafter on 4th June, 1987, two were promoted in Class III. vide order dated 27th August, 1987 one more Class IV employee was promoted to Class III. Later on, on 6th April 1988 a list of 8 class IV employee was prepared found eligible for promotion to Class III post but only one from that list was appointed in Class III. vide order dated 27th August, 1987 one more Class IV employee was promoted to Class III. Later on, on 6th April 1988 a list of 8 class IV employee was prepared found eligible for promotion to Class III post but only one from that list was appointed in Class III. Thus from 1985 to 1988, 12 class IV employees were promoted in Class III. In 1989, fifty appointments were made in Class III out of which 48 were direct and 2 by promotion of class IV employees. 10. It is said that an examination was held for promotion to Class III in which three persons were selected from the select list dated 6.6.1987, two were appointed on the same date i.e. on 6.6.1987 and one on 27th August, 1987. These three persons are respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 11. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have also filed their counter-affidavit though much delayed i.e. in 2008. They have also given similar facts as stated in supplementary counter-affidavit sworn on 28th September, 1999 by Sri N.A.Zaidi, the then Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. 12. From the above stand of the respondent No. 1, it was not clear as to how and in what circumstances selection was held on 6th June, 1987 and whether it was informed to all Class IV employees or not. The matter was heard to some extent by Hon’ble R.B.Mishra, J on 24th April 2003 and onward whereafter on 4th March, 2004 His Lordship passed the following order: “The original records have been perused. It has to be indicated on behalf of the respondents that under what circumstances and when respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were initially appointed in judgeship of Ghaziabad or elsewhere. Liberty is also given to them to put their stand by way of affidavit. List on 6th April, 2004.” 13. Again, after a long time, the matter came up for hearing before Hon’ble V.K.Shukla, J and Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass following order on 24.11.2009: “Pleadings which are available on record, prima facie reflects that entire claim of the parties is based on promotional exercise dated 2.2.1987, 6.6.1987 and 12.12.1987. Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, Advocate, appearing on behalf of establishment is as such directed to produce entire record in respect of promotional exercise purported to have been undertaken on 2.2.1987, 6.6.1987 and 12.12.1987. List this matter on 10.12.2009.” 14. Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, Advocate, appearing on behalf of establishment is as such directed to produce entire record in respect of promotional exercise purported to have been undertaken on 2.2.1987, 6.6.1987 and 12.12.1987. List this matter on 10.12.2009.” 14. Thereafter matter came up for hearing before Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J and His Lordship passed following order on 15th February, 2011: “Neither the counsel for the District Judge nor the counsel for the selected candidates, who are impleaded as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, are in a position to explain in the Court as to when a notice/information was circulated by the District Judge that a written test/interview shall take place from amongst the eligible Class-IV employees in the Judgeship of Ghaziabad for promotion on Class-III post qua the test held on 6.6.1987. What is relied upon both by the District Judge as well as selected candidates in respect of their appointments by way of promotion is a sheet which contains details of the marks allotted to only three candidates namely respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in respect of type test and interview on the basis whereof appointments have been made on the same date. Such procedure, in the opinion of the Court, is de hors the statutory provisions and even otherwise violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The matter cannot be permitted to lay at this, inasmuch as District Judge is not only expected to know the law but also to ensure that the law is obeyed. Let the present District Judge, Ghaziabad file his personal affidavit by the next date, after examining the records, categorically disclosing as to whether any date was notified for holding of such selections on 6.6.1987 and as to whether any other Class-IV employee, except those selected, were invited to participate in the selection held on 6.6.1987 or not. If this Court comes to a conclusion that the documents have been manufactured for suggesting the selection for the purpose of appointments of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the Court may proceed to direct such further action as may be required under law. List on 24.2.2011.” 15. Pursuant to the order dated 15th February, 2011 an affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1 sworn by Sri Vishnu Chandra Gupta, District Judge, Ghaziabad. He states that he holds the office of District Judge Ghaziabad since 5th August, 2008. List on 24.2.2011.” 15. Pursuant to the order dated 15th February, 2011 an affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1 sworn by Sri Vishnu Chandra Gupta, District Judge, Ghaziabad. He states that he holds the office of District Judge Ghaziabad since 5th August, 2008. What he has said in respect to record would be interesting to reproduce as under: 7. That Shri Shyam Lal-II, Officer-In-charge (Litigation)/ Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad submitted his report on 19.2.2011. After receipt of the report, I also perused the record available in the office of this Judgeship with the help of Shri Shyam Lal-II, Officer Incharge (Litigation)/ Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, Shri Rajbir Singh, Officiating Senior Administrative Officer and Shri Jagdish Chandra Khatri, Central Nazir of Ghaziabad Judgeship and found two more papers first a report of the then IV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad Shri Allah Raham dated 19.8.1987 and the second one is a copy of an order of the then district Judge, Ghaziabad Shri D.K.Agrawal dated 27.8.1987 which appear to be relevant in connection with the queries made by the Hon’ble High Court. I also requested the Officer Incharge (Litigation) / Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad to ensure whether original order dated 27.8.1987 is available in the Guard Files or in any other record of the Judgeship and report on the same forthwith. A copy of the report dated 19.2.2011 of Shri Shyam Lal-II, Officer Incharge (Litigation) / Addl. District & Session Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad alongwith its Annexures (2(a) to (e)) and the order passed thereon by the deponent is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 2 to this compliance affidavit. 8. That the then District Judge, Ghaziabad vide order dated 4-6-1987 directed Shri Allah Raham, IV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad to conduct examination of (1) Shri Chatar Pal (2) Shri Maharaj Singh and (3) Shri Mahendra Singh Class IV employees of this Judgeship for considering their promotion in class III employees on 6.6.1987 which is already annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 3 to this compliance affidavit. 9. That after tracing the record available in the Judgeship, a report dated 19.8.1987 submitted by Shri Allah Raham, IV Addl. 9. That after tracing the record available in the Judgeship, a report dated 19.8.1987 submitted by Shri Allah Raham, IV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad marked as Annexure 4 to this compliance affidavit and the order passed thereon by the then District Judge, Ghaziabad Shri D.K. Agrawal on 27-8-1987 (copy annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 5 to this compliance affidavit) and thereafter order passed on the same on 29.8.1987 by Shri Allah Raham, IV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad, copy of which annexed herewith which is already marked as Annexure 5 to this compliance affidavit, makes no room to further investigate into the matter that no person except those mentioned in the order dated 4.6.1987 passed by the then District Judge, Ghaziabad had been invited to participate in the selection held for promotion of Class IV to Class III employees on 6.6.1987. 10. That these papers also make it clear that no opportunity was given to eligible persons to appear in the test. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.8.1987 is being reproduced herein below for ready reference : “ . . . . . From the facts narrated above it appears that opportunity was not given to the eligible persons to appear in the test. One Sri Bhim Singh has also moved application to that effect. In all fairness to opportunity must be given to all eligible. Therefore the officer-in-charge Nazarat is directed to hold a test of the eligible candidates after due notice. . . . . . . Sd/- DK Agrawal District Judge Ghaziabad 27.8.1987 Copy forwarded to the Central Nazir for information & n.a. B.O. Sd/- Sadar Munsarim” The relevant order passed by Shri Allah Raham, IV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad on 29.8.1987 is also reproduced herein below for ready reference: ^^lsUV~y ukftj lHkh Class IV deZpkfj;ksa dks lwfpr djsa fd tks Hkh izksUufr ds fy, ijh{kk nsuk pkgrs gSa os fnukad 29-9-1987 rd izkFkZuk i= nsaA ijh{kk frfFk ckn esa lwfpr dh tk,xhA g0 vYykg jge 29-8-1987** 11. That the subsequent report dated 21.2.2011 alongwith its Annexures 6(a) to 6 (e) annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 6 to this compliance affidavit, submitted by Shri Shyam Lal-II, Officer Incharge (Litigation)/Addl. That the subsequent report dated 21.2.2011 alongwith its Annexures 6(a) to 6 (e) annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 6 to this compliance affidavit, submitted by Shri Shyam Lal-II, Officer Incharge (Litigation)/Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad and after making necessary enquiries from the staff and going through the record available in the judgeship and the Guard Files and the record made available with the report dated 19.2.2011 (Annexure2), following are the replies on the queries made in the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 15.2.2011. 12. That the deponent after examining the record available in the Judgeship of Ghaziabad and on the basis of the reports submitted by Shri Shyam Lal-II, Officer-In-charge (Litigation) / Addl. District & Session Judge, Court No. 4, Ghaziabad, Shri Rajbir Singh, officiating Senior Administrative Officer and Shri Jagish Chandra Khatri, Central Nazir of Ghaziabad Judgeship submits that no date was notified for holding selection of 6.6.1987 for promotion from Class IV employees to Class III employees. 13. That no other Class IV employee except those mentioned in the order dated 4-6-1987 passed by the then District Judge, Ghaziabad namely No. (1) Shri Chhatar Pal Singh, (2) Shri Mahraj Singh and (3) Shri Mahendra Singh were invited to participate in the selection held on 6.6.1987. Copy of the order dated 4.6.1987 has already been annexed as Annexure 3 to this compliance affidavit. 14. That it is pertinent to mention here in this affidavit that original order dated 27.8.1987 passed by the then District Judge, Ghaziabad Shri D.K.Agrawal is not available either in the Guard Files of the English Office/ Administrative Office of the Judgeship nor in the Guard File of Central Nazarat. The same is also not available in any other records available in the Judgeship as also reported by Shri Rajbir Singh, officiating Senior Administrative Officer in its report dated 19.2.2011 and Shri Jagdish Chandra Khatri, Central Nazir of Ghaziabad Judgeship dated 19.2.2011 and enclosed with the report of the Officer Incharge Litigation dated 21.2.2011. The same is also not available in any other records available in the Judgeship as also reported by Shri Rajbir Singh, officiating Senior Administrative Officer in its report dated 19.2.2011 and Shri Jagdish Chandra Khatri, Central Nazir of Ghaziabad Judgeship dated 19.2.2011 and enclosed with the report of the Officer Incharge Litigation dated 21.2.2011. However, the order of arrangement made in pursuance of order dated 27.8.1987 promoting Shri Mahendra Singh to Class III duly signed by the then District Judge, Ghaziabad Shri D.K. Agrawal is available in the guard file of transfer orders of employees as is evident from report of Shri Rajbir Singh officiating Senior Administrative Officer/ Sadar Munsarim already annexed as Annexure 6 (d) & Annexure (e) to this compliance affidavit.” 16. From the report dated 19th February, 2011 submitted by Senior Administrative Officer, Ghaziabad Judgeship, it is evident that he could not find anything to show that information was given to Class IV employees for holding test for promotion to Class III in general. In fact on 4th June, 1987 the then District Judge, after receiving applications only from three Class IV employees, namely respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, passed the following order: “The applications of the following class IV employees have been received for promotion to Class III employees under G.O. No. 37/1-Niyukti dated 1.1.1970, No. 37/1/1969-Karmik dated 21.8.1976 and G.O. No. 37/1-1969/Karmik-2 dated 31.8.1982. 1. Sri Chhattar Pal Singh 2. Sri Maharaj Singh 3. Sri Mahendra Singh Sri Allah Raham, IV Addl. District Judge will conduct the examination of the above employees in accordance with the above G.Os on 6.6.1987.” 17. On 6th June, 1987 itself the written test, interview and typing test all was conducted, merit list was prepared in which respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 secured 29, 33 and 25 marks, and on that list itself, District Judge passed following order on 6th June, 1987 itself: Sri Chhatar Pal Singh and Maharaj Singh are promoted and appointed on paid apprentice on the fixed salary scale of Rs. 350/- w.e.f. 6.6.87 and chhattar Pal Singh is appointed paid apprentice in the Court of Munsiff Ghaziabad and Maharaj Singh is appointed paid apprentice in the Court of Civil Judge.” 18. The endorsement below Annexure 2(d) of affidavit of respondent No. 1 shows that it was noted by respondent Nos. 350/- w.e.f. 6.6.87 and chhattar Pal Singh is appointed paid apprentice in the Court of Munsiff Ghaziabad and Maharaj Singh is appointed paid apprentice in the Court of Civil Judge.” 18. The endorsement below Annexure 2(d) of affidavit of respondent No. 1 shows that it was noted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the same date as also by the concerned Civil Judge and Bill Clerk. Since only respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed on 6th June, 1987 and respondent No. 4 remained unappointed, he represented his matter whereupon order was passed by the then District Judge on 18th June, 1987, and report was called for from the then IV Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad Sri Allaha Raham, as he then was. On 19th August, 1987, following report was submitted by Sri Allah Raham: “May refer to your Order dated 18.6.1987 on the application of Shri Mahendra Singh and Shri Bheem Singh, class IV employees of this Judgeship. On 4.6.1987 the then learned District Judge, Ghaziabad passed an order directing me to conduct the examination of Sarvshri Chhatar Pal Singh, Maharaj Singh and Mahendra Singh for promotion to class III. In view of this order examination of the above three employees was taken on 6.6.1987 by me and a tabulation sheet was prepared. Shri Chhatar Pal Singh and Shri Maharaj Singh who had secured I and III position in the examination were promoted to class III. Now, Shri Mahendra Singh has prayed that the order regarding the promotion of class IV employees to class III may be reviewed and he may be promote to class III. Shri Bhim Singh has represented that there was general notice for this test which was held on 6.6.1987. He also eligible for the test and should be given an opportunity to appear in the examination. The Sadar Munsarim has reported the there were in fact three vacancies for promotion from class IV to class III. In view of this report one vacancy is still to be filled up. Report is submitted for your perusal and necessary orders.” 19. He also eligible for the test and should be given an opportunity to appear in the examination. The Sadar Munsarim has reported the there were in fact three vacancies for promotion from class IV to class III. In view of this report one vacancy is still to be filled up. Report is submitted for your perusal and necessary orders.” 19. On this report, Sri D.K.Agrawal the then District Judge Ghaziabad, who had taken over charge in the meantime on 16th June, 1987 on the post of District Judge, passed following order promoting respondent No. 4 also in Class III: “Seen the report of Officer in charge Nazarat dated 19.8.1987 and the report of Sadar Munsarim dated 26.8.87. The facts are that my learned predecessor forwarded on 6.6.1987 the application (1) Sri Chhatar Pal Singh (2) Sri Maharaj Singh and (3) Sri Mahendra Singh to Sri Allah Raham IV Addl. District Judge/ Officer-in-charge nazarat with a direction to hold an examination for their promotion from class IV to class III. The examination was held on 6.6.1987. All the three candidates successfully completed the test having obtained 33, 29 and 25 marks respectively. However Sri Chattarpal Singh asnd Sri maharaj Singh were appointed by my learned predessor vide order dated 6.6.1987. After I took over charge on 16.6.87 the application of Sri Mahendra Singh was put up before me on 18.6.87. Sri Mahendra Singh prayed that he should also be promoted to class III post. The report of officer-in-charge Nazarat and the Sadar Munsarim indicae that there are about six vacancies in the quota of class IV for promotion to class III. From the facts narrated above it appears that opportunity was not given to the eligible persons to appear in the test. One Sri Bhim Singh has also moved application to that effect. In all fairness to opportunity must be given to all eligible. Therefore the office-in-charge Nazarat is directed to hold a test of the eligible candidates after due notice. Sri Mahendra Singh has already successfully completed the test and he is therefore promoted to class III cadre with effect from 1.9.1987. Sadar Munsarim to put up proposal regarding his posting.” 20. In all fairness to opportunity must be given to all eligible. Therefore the office-in-charge Nazarat is directed to hold a test of the eligible candidates after due notice. Sri Mahendra Singh has already successfully completed the test and he is therefore promoted to class III cadre with effect from 1.9.1987. Sadar Munsarim to put up proposal regarding his posting.” 20. This document also contain endorsement of Sri Allah Raham dated 29th September 1987 to the following effect: ^^lsUV~y ukftj lHkh Class IV deZpkfj;ksa dks lwfpr djsa fd tks Hkh izksUufr ds fy, ijh{kk nsuk pkgrs gSa os fnukad 29-9-1987 rd izkFkZuk i= nsaA ijh{kk frfFk ckn esa lwfpr dh tk,xhA g0 vYykg jge 29-8-1987** 21. It is interesting to notice from Annexure 6(c) of the affidavit of respondent No. 1 containing order dated 27th August, 1987 of the then District Judge that he noticed this fact that opportunity was not given to eligible persons to appear in the test and in all fairness opportunity must have been given to all eligible but then he directed the office-In-charge Nazarat to hold test of eligible candidates after due notice. Despite thereto he appointed respondent No. 4 observing that he had already successfully completed the test. These observations are apparently contradictory yet continued to hold the field as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 continued to work though the selection admittedly was not made by giving opportunity to all other eligible persons to appear in the test. This is also evident from representation dated 6th August, 1987 submitted by Sri Bhim Singh (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). The promotion of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 therefore is in utter violation of fundamental rights of other class IV employees i.e. right of consideration and hence their promotions were ex facie illegal. 22. Unfortunately, petitioners though have impleaded respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as party to this writ petition, but, orders of their promotion have not been assailed and no relief has been sought against them. 22. Unfortunately, petitioners though have impleaded respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as party to this writ petition, but, orders of their promotion have not been assailed and no relief has been sought against them. Despite the fact that ex facie this Court is satisfied that the then District Judges acted in a wholly illegal manner and it is really unfortunate that such high judicial officers functioned in such a reckless manner that they did not care even to observe the minimum compliance with the statute giving opportunity of consideration to all eligible persons yet in absence of any relief sought by petitioners against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, I am constrained in not passing any order against them and that too after such a long time. 23. Suffice it to mention that as per the order dated 27th August, 1987 passed by District Judge, Ghaziabad there were six vacancies out which one was directed to be filled in by promoting Mahendra Singh, 5 vacancies thereafter remained. The selection held on 2nd February, 1987 was for 5 vacancies of Class III wherein a select list of 8 persons were prepared. The impugned order says that at the time of interview, the then District Judge prescribed minimum standard of 20 marks or more out of 40 in the written test and after the written test, eight candidates were called for interview and merit list was prepared on 6th April, 1988 which included the names of all these petitioners at serial Nos. 4 to 8. 24. That being so, petitioners, having qualified in the test and were placed in the merit list in order of their position as per marks obtained by them against the vacancies for which the said selection was held, they were entitled to be promoted when other three persons were promoted. No reason has been assigned as to why after making 3 promotions from select list dated 6.4.1988, remaining 2 vacancies could not have been filled in by next two candidates. Therefore, the impugned orders, in so far as they suggest that despite having qualified in selection and there being no reason for appointing them particularly when it was admitted by respondent No. 1 that respondent Nos. Therefore, the impugned orders, in so far as they suggest that despite having qualified in selection and there being no reason for appointing them particularly when it was admitted by respondent No. 1 that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were promoted, due opportunity of consideration was not given to petitioners and other class IV employees, this Court find it justified and to meet the ends of justice that against remaining two vacancies, for which selection was held pursuant to District Judge’s order dated 27th August, 1987, petitioners, at serial Nos. 4 and 5 in the merit list dated 6.4.1988, ought to have been promoted but having denied the same, their fundamental right of consideration for promotion as well as fundamental right of equal opportunity of employment, which includes the right to be considered for promotion, has been denied. 25. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot sustain hence quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider petitioners in order of merit as per merit list dated 6.4.1988 for filling in the remaining two vacancies for which selection was held pursuant to order dated 27th August, 1987. If there is nothing otherwise, the respondent No. 1 is directed to promote the concerned incumbents, with all consequential benefits. 26. Normally, this Court does not issue an order of promotion straight way but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact that a blatant legal and constitutional abrasion has been committed by an authority not other than but District Judges and also the fact that for the last more than 20 years, this matter is pending before this Court, I am constrained to pass order, as above, so that agony of petitioners may come to rest without any further delay. 27. This is a fit case in which the petitioners should also be awarded an exemplary cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/- against respondent No. 1. —————