JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-The appellants were the Members of the Criminal Judicial Service before its integration and formation of the Kerala Judicial Service. Prior to 1991, in the State of Kerala, the lower judiciary consisted of Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service. The Service conditions of the Subordinate Magisterial Service was being governed by a set of Rules called Kerala Sub-ordinate Magisterial Service Rules, 1964. Similarly the service conditions of Civil Judicial Service was being governed by the State Judicial Service Rules, 1966. In the year 1973, on the basis of the order issued by the Government, two separate wings, one on the civil side and the other on the criminal side had been formed. The aforesaid bifurcation under the order of the Executive Government was challenged before the Kerala High Court in the case of M.K. Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors., and the Kerala High Court was of the conclusion that such bifurcation is invalid and discriminatory. The decision of the Kerala High Court was assailed before this Court and in the case of State of Kerala v. M.K. Krishnan Nair and Ors.1, this Court upheld the validity of the bifurcation and the decision of Kerala High Court on that point was reversed. On a construction of Articles 309 and 234 of the Constitution, this Court held that it is open to the State Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service, as it may choose, according to the administrative convenience and expediency. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, the High Court considered the question of integrating the two wings of the Subordinate Judiciary and finally, a set of special rules for Kerala Judicial Service under Articles 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India was made, which provided for a common service called the Kerala Judicial Service. The service was formed by integrating the Members of the Civil Judicial Service as well as the Criminal Judicial Service and under the Rules for drawing up of the gradation list for the integrated cadre as between the Subordinate Judges belonging to the civil side and Chief Judicial Magistrates belonging to the criminal side, it was indicated that a ratio of 3:1 should be maintained. Similarly, for drawing up of a combined gradation list as between the Munsiff Magistrates and senior Grade Judicial Magistrate, was to be maintained in the ratio as 5:2. The Rules further provided that in working of the ratio of 3:1, the first three places would be given to the Subordinate Judges and the 4th place would be given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in working of the ratio 5:2, it was stipulated that the first three places will be given to the Munsiffs and 4th place to be given to the Magistrate (criminal), 5th and 6th place to the Munsiffs and 7th place to the Magistrate (criminal) and so on. The Association of the Magistrates belonging to the criminal side and two other individual Magistrates, assailed the validity of the aforesaid integration, more particularly, the validity of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court however by the impugned Judgment came to the conclusion that there cannot be any inherent infirmity in prescribing a quota for appointment of persons drawn from two sources and in working out the rule of quota by rotating the vacancies between them in a proportion. It further held that a ratio can be fixed not in the abstract, but with reference to the total number of persons in service in the two groups, who are to be integrated and the strength of each service is a reasonable basis for formulating the ratio. The High Court held that in working out the aforesaid principle to the case in hand in prescribing the ratio of 3:1 and 5:2, no arbitrariness is discernible and, therefore, it would not be open for the Court to strike down the same. The High Court also came to the conclusion that since a Magistrate who would have earlier reached the post o