JUDGMENT By the Court.—A Division Bench of this Court while hearing the special appeal alongwith a bunch of writ petitions had formulated the following questions and referred the special appeal alongwith the connected writ petitions for decision by the Full Bench. The Division Bench made it clear that it would be open to the Full Bench to frame or reframe the questions formulated by the said Bench or it may frame new questions. “1. Whether a policy decision with regard to appointment of class III or class IV employees can be taken by the Chief Justice alone or by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Bench or by a committee authorised by the Chief Justice? 2. Since in Rule 4 for appointment on class IV posts namely, chowkidar, waterman, sweeper, etc. discretion has been conferred on the District Judge for making appointment, whether the discretion which is conferred on the District Judge by the rule making authority by means of legislation, can be taken away by the judicial pronouncement and as such even such posts should be filled by advertisement? 3. Whether the decision taken by the committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Administrative Committee or the Full Court is to operate prospectively or will apply retrospectively which would result in removal of all the employees on class III r class IV posts in the district judgeships who have been appointed without advertisement and have been regularized, whether such employees can be removed from service? 4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ? 5. Whether engaging or appointing class IV employees on daily wages requires the advertisement?” 2. The matter came up before a Full Bench on 20.8.2010, when the Full Bench was pleased to pass the following order: “Large number of writ petitions clubbed with each other having a further clubbing with certain special appeals are listed before the Bench. 5. Whether engaging or appointing class IV employees on daily wages requires the advertisement?” 2. The matter came up before a Full Bench on 20.8.2010, when the Full Bench was pleased to pass the following order: “Large number of writ petitions clubbed with each other having a further clubbing with certain special appeals are listed before the Bench. As large number of cases are listed that goes without saying that several counsel are present for either of the side. Al though, the case of Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, who appears in one of the special appeal No. 468 of 2010 is not listed today, but he is present. We also heard his submission/suggestion on various technical aspects. Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents with other colleagues Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri K. M. Singh, learned Advocates besides other counsel from one side are present and at the same time Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Asthalekar, Sri S. P Singh, learned Advocates are also present on behalf of the High Court. During the course of the suggestion, it has come that in most of the writ petitions, pleadings (counter and rejoinder-affidavits) have not been permitted to be exchanged so far and they are at initial stage. Fresh writs are to be heard and decided on the facts of their own. Submission of every learned Advocates is, that so far large number of writ petitions, listed, they being related to the selections/appointments, termination in the District Courts either of class III or of Class IV posts, either in the regular Courts or in the Fast Track Court as the case may be, they need to be decided by learned Single Judge on the basis of their individual facts and as there is no decision, they may be detached from other cases,ýÿ referred before this Bench, as after decision of learned Single Judge, there may be another opportunity to either of the side to have their submission before a Bench (Division Bench). It has been further suggested that Special Appeals, which are against the order of the learned Single Judge, in which there are certain observations about powers of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, they may be permitted to be heard on the questions so posed/observed/referred. It has been further suggested that Special Appeals, which are against the order of the learned Single Judge, in which there are certain observations about powers of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, they may be permitted to be heard on the questions so posed/observed/referred. All concerned has submitted that if this is ensured by directing the office to list the matters accordingly, then hearing of the needed matter may be simplified and solution of the issue, which is before this Bench may be expedited. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior counsel further submits that in the Special Appeal No. 65 of 2010, 63 of 2008, 68 of 2007, 1152 of 2007 and 595 of 2007 challenge is to the selection of the staff of the District Courts and the matter is to be decided by Division Bench and as such those questions areýÿ not involved and therefore, these appeals may not be treated to be like other appeals in which, the appointments in this Court and the powers of Hon’ble the Chief Justice is under challenge. Here, it may be recalled that Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel also initially as noted above, informed the Court that in the Special Appeal filed by him, which is not listed today, the challenge is to the order of learned Single Judge in which the selection of Staff of the District Court is involved. On the mention of the facts by Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned Advocate, who appears in writ petition No. 6331 of 2010, it is clear that leaned Single Judge directed this matter to be listed with the records of Special Appeal No. 65 of 2010 and 24 other writ petitions and it is thereafter, a Division Bench on 26.3.2010 directed this petition along other petitions noted above to be listed alongwith Special Appeal. At this stage, one of the facts as submitted by Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel may also be noted that against the order of learned Single Judge, if the matter is decide either way, right of Special Appeal may be there. The Bench having appreciated the suggestion/submission of all concerned agrees that unless all the issues/questions which may lead to adjudication of facts also really arise may not be decided and therefore, proposes to direct the office to list the cases in the light of the directions, which are being given below. The Bench having appreciated the suggestion/submission of all concerned agrees that unless all the issues/questions which may lead to adjudication of facts also really arise may not be decided and therefore, proposes to direct the office to list the cases in the light of the directions, which are being given below. Accordingly, the office is directed to list only those Special Appeals in which the claim of the petitioner is about the consideration of his case by the Hon’ble High Court and after the order of learned Single Judge, the matter has been referred to be considered by this Bench and rest of the matters either in the writ petition or in the Special Appeals relating to the appointment/selection and termination of the District Court staffs be formed a different class and they are to be listed before the appropriate Single Judge/Division Bench hearing Special Appeal as the case may be, which will be in the fitness of things and will be proper also. Office is directed to complete the exercise of sorting out of the cases and to list all the matters as indicated above by us, before appropriate Courts/Bench. Office is further directed to list/notify the Special Appeals which are to be listed before this Bench on 27.8.2010. “ All the writ petitions have, therefore, been disconnected except the present special appeal. 3. We have gone through the questions formulated by the Division Bench and are of the considered opinion that except question No. 4, which is reproduced below, the remaining question does not require our consideration in view of the order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the earlier Full Bench. “4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ?” Facts of the Case 4. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ?” Facts of the Case 4. The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.1.2010 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners appellants, who are 7 in number seeking continuance in service as class IV employees (except appellant No. 6, who claims continuance as a driver) in the district Judgeship of Agra, has been dismissed. The learned single Judge, however, made it clear that in view of the recommendation made by Hon’ble the Administrative Judge, in the event any benefits are extended to such ad hoc employees on the administrative side, then the dismissal of the writ petition shall not be an impediment for the availability of such benefits, if any. 5. The date of appointment of the appellants in the district Judgeship of Agra are as follows: 6. They claim regularisation under the provisions of the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts Within the Purview of the Public Service Commission)(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Regularisation Rules 2001). All the appellants were initially appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of 3 months and their appointment was extended by 3 months every time till Ist September 2009, whereafter, they have not been permitted to sign the attendance register. However, they claim that they were still working in the Judgeship of Agra as their case has been forwarded for consideration by the High Court and they shall be permitted to sign the attendance register and shall be paid salary only after orders are received from the High Curt in this behalf. All the appellants except Ghanshyam Lawaniya-appellant No. 6 have been appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 on the basic pay of Rs. 2550, which was the pay scale of Group ‘D’ employees. The appellant No. 6 namely Ghanshyam Lawaniya was initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4950 with initial pay scale of Rs. 3050. However, subsequently, because of shortage of staff cars, he was appointed as Group ‘D’ employee in the pay scale of Rs. 2550, which was the pay scale of Group ‘D’ employees. The appellant No. 6 namely Ghanshyam Lawaniya was initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4950 with initial pay scale of Rs. 3050. However, subsequently, because of shortage of staff cars, he was appointed as Group ‘D’ employee in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 as a peon on ad hoc basis vide order dated 28.2.2006. The State Government sought to regularise the services of all the ad hoc employees by framing aforementioned Regularisation Rules 2001 on 20.12.2001. The cut-off date given for regularisation was 30.6.1998 and all ad hoc employees, who have been appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 30.6.1998 and were continuously in service on the date of commencement of the Regularisation Rules 2001 and possess requisite qualifications for regular appointment were to be regularised. It was provided that after the ad hoc employee has completed 3 years service, he shall be considered for regular appointment in the permanent/temporary vacancy on availability of posts. The appellant claimed benefit of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Kishun and others v. U.P. Co-operaative Bank Ltd. Lucknow and others, (1989) 2 UPLBEC 144 and therefore, claim regularisation of their services. The Administrative Committee constituted by the District Judge, Agra considered the claim of the appellants for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules 2001 and rejected their claim on the ground that none of the appellants have been appointed on or before 30.6.1998 and, therefore, they are not entitled for regularisation. Acting on the recommendation of the Administrative Committee, the District Judge, Agra did not issue any order for regularising their services. In the meantime, on 1.9.2009, the District Judge, Agra directed not to issue any re-appointment letters/orders to the appellants and all the appellants have consequently been restrained from signing the attendance register. The appellants approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 62910 of 2009 giving rise to the present appeal challenging the action of the District Judge in not issuing the re-appointment letter to each of the appellants and also seeking regularisation of their services with all consequential benefits. The appellants approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 62910 of 2009 giving rise to the present appeal challenging the action of the District Judge in not issuing the re-appointment letter to each of the appellants and also seeking regularisation of their services with all consequential benefits. The learned single Judge has considered the correspondence exchanged between the District Judge, Agra and the High Court on the administrative side and had come to the conclusion that the appointment of the appellants were made without undertaking any regular process of selection. The Regularisation Rules 2001 would not be attracted where the very appointment has not been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules and, consequently, dismissed the writ petition. 7. We have heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Yashwant Varma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Rival Submissions: 8. Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that all the appellants have been appointed on ad hoc basis against the substantive vacancies in the pay scale and allowances admissible under the Rules between 14.7.1998 to 27.6.2001, which was the sole discretion of the District Judge and, therefore, it cannot be said that their appointment has been made without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 of the U.P. Sub-ordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Rules). Thus, all of them having worked for a continuous period of more than three years are entitled for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules 2001. Thus, all of them having worked for a continuous period of more than three years are entitled for regularisation under the Regularisation Rules 2001. He has relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2008 (7) ADJ 369 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jai Kishun (supra) and submitted that the directions contained in the judgment of the learned single Judge in the case of Sachin Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (6) AWC 6078, wherein, the learned single Judge had directed that the District Judge must adhere to the settled norms of selections on the vacancies even if they fall on the posts mentioned in Rule 4(3), i.e. by advertising, hold selections while making such appointments, and follow the rules of reservation, has been held to apply prospectively by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav (supra), and therefore, the appointment of the appellants made without advertising the posts cannot be said to be void or illegal. He further submitted that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Kishun (supra), the appellants are entitled for regularisation as they have been appointed much prior to the date when the Regularisation Rules was framed and notified by the State Government i.e. 20.12.2001. 9. Sri Yashwant Varma, learned counsel for the respondents however, submitted that all the appellants have been appointed on ad hoc basis initially for a period of 3 months and even though their engagement has been extended from time to time but their appointment has not been made in accordance with Rule 4 of the 1955 Rules after complying with the provisions of 1955 Rules. Thus, they are not entitled for any continuance in service or for regularisation of their services. He has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, (2005) 4 SCC 209 and Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dubey, (2007) 1 SCC 373 . He further submitted that under the scheme of our Constitution only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction of prospectively overruling a decision. The learned single Judge of this Court cannot declare that a decision of this Court shall apply prospectively. He further submitted that under the scheme of our Constitution only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction of prospectively overruling a decision. The learned single Judge of this Court cannot declare that a decision of this Court shall apply prospectively. He, thus submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge does not require any interference. Statutory Provisions 1955 Rules “4. Method of recruitment.—Recruitment to the following posts in the establishment shall be made: (1) Daftaries and Bundle lifters.—By promotion strictly on merits from amongst process servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes who have put in at least five years’ service as such : Provided that no person shall be promoted to these posts unless he is able to read and write Hindi in Devnagri Script with correctness and fluency and can discharge the duties of the office satisfactorily and in the case of the post of daftari unless he also knows book-binding. (2) Process servers, orderly peons, office peons and farrashes.—(a) by appointment of candidates on the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 or (b) by transfer from one post to another according to suitability. (3) Chowkidars, malies, waterman and sweepers.—By direct recruitment on the discretion of District Judge. 12. Waiting list.—(I) A waiting list of candidates shall be maintained for each Judgeship for the posts of process servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes. No waiting list shall be maintained for chowkidars, malies, sweepers and waterman. (ii) The waiting list should be of reasonable dimensions and be revised from time to time with a view to removing therefrom the names of: (a) all such candidates as are not likely to receive appointments before attaining the maximum age prescribed in Rule 8, and (b) such candidates as are found guilty of insubordination, misbehaviours or dishonesty in the discharge of their duties in temporary or officiating vacancies, after giving them necessary opportunities to explain their conduct. Note:—The order of names in the waiting list shall be in the order in which the candidates are admitted to it but the District Judge may at the time of appointment, choose from the list the most suitable of all the candidates for reasons to be recorded in writing.” Regularisation Rules 2001 Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission)(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 is reproduced below: “2. Amendment of Rule 4.—In the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979, Rule 4 for existing sub-rule (1) the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely- ‘(I) Any person who- (I) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission)(Third Amendment) Rules, 2001; (II) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment as the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (III) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders.” Discussion: 10. From a perusal of Rule 4 and 12 of the 1955 Rules, we find that appointment on the post of process servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes which are class IV posts has to be made by the District Judge from out of the persons whose name finds place in the waiting list so prepared in Rule 12 of the 1955 Rules. The method of preparing waiting list has not been given. However, since it is a public employment, the District Judge has to act fairly and in a transparent manner and he is not expected to act in an arbitrary manner and has to adopt a policy. This necessarily implies that the advertisement has to be made for preparing the waiting list of persons eligible for appointment on the post of process servers, orderlies, office peons and farrashes. 11. In the case of Sachin Kumar (supra), the learned single Judge had rightly held that appointment on these posts should be made by making advertisement. Moreover, we find that each of the appellants were initially appointed for a short term of three months on ad hoc basis. Even their appointment cannot be said to be on a permanent vacancy because the appointment order limits it to a period of three months. The very appointment have not been made in a transparent manner. Moreover, we find that each of the appellants were initially appointed for a short term of three months on ad hoc basis. Even their appointment cannot be said to be on a permanent vacancy because the appointment order limits it to a period of three months. The very appointment have not been made in a transparent manner. It appears to be as a result of adopting the policy of pick and choose. Thus, all the appellants were appointed as a result of favouritism or on extraneous consideration. The observations made by the learned single Judge in the case of Manoj Kumar Yadav (supra), in our considered opinion would not give legality to such appointments. We may mention here that merely because the High Court sanctions the fund for payment of salary to the persons working in the various Judgeships it cannot be taken that the High Court has granted approval to their appointments or their appointments are taken to have been made under the 1955 Rules. It is not the case of the appellants that the High Court has specifically approved their appointments. The Regularisation Rules is specifically available to those persons who have been appointed on ad hoc basis on or before 30.6.1998. It is not applicable to the persons appointed on an ad hoc basis after the cut-off date i.e. 30.6.1998 mentioned in the Regularisation Rules. The regularisation can, if at all is to be considered strictly in accordance with the Regularisation Rules. As we have already come to the conclusion that the Regularisation Rules would not be applicable in the present case and there is no challenge to the cut-off date fixed in the Regularisation Rules i.e. 30.6.1998, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Jai Kishun (supra) heavily relied upon by the appellants would not be applicable. 12. We may mention here that in case of Binod Kumar Gupta (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the appointment has been made violating all norms then merely because persons have been working on the post for the last 15 years, they cannot be permitted to continue in service. 12. We may mention here that in case of Binod Kumar Gupta (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the appointment has been made violating all norms then merely because persons have been working on the post for the last 15 years, they cannot be permitted to continue in service. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the appointment has been made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is said to be within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one, whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules has been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of the rules might not have been strictly adhered to. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , has held that irregular appointment can be considered for regularisation of service but not illegal appointment. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record as to the manner in which the appellants have been appointed initially on ad hoc basis for a period of 3 months. Whether there was any advertisement issued by the District Judge or whether a waiting list was prepared by the District Judge out of which the appointment on ad hoc basis have been made, has not been brought on record. On the other hand, we find from the order passed by the learned single Judge that Hon’ble the Administrative Judge had found that the appointments have been made without undertaking any regular process of selection and all these appointments in plain and simple words can be termed to be as back door entries. Thus, appointments of all the appellants were illegal and, therefore, they cannot be considered for regularisation. The learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition. Conclusion: 13. Thus, appointments of all the appellants were illegal and, therefore, they cannot be considered for regularisation. The learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition. Conclusion: 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that even where an ad hoc employee is appointed for a fixed period of three months and his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned from the High Court for paying his salary, such appointment cannot be treated to have obtained an assent of the High Court and even if such employee has put in about 8 years or more service, is not entitled for regularisation. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the special appeal, which is hereby dismissed. ——————