Judgment

MITTER, J.: By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner, at present an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Bihar, challenges the validity of (1) the order of the Patna High Court by Notification No. 333 dated 25th October, 1968 transferring him from Arrah and posting him as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Singhbhum, and (2) the direction or, as he calls it, the order of the Patna High Court dated September 23, 1968 declaring respondents 3 to 5 as senior to him in the gradation list of Additional District and Sessions Judges maintained by the High Court. He also prays that the High Court be directed to allow him to take over charge as officiating District and Sessions Judge at Arrah in terms of Government notification dated October 17, 1968. According to him the direction or order of September 23, 1968 was in contravention of R. 16 (b) and R. 16 (d) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, He takes his stand on the notification of the Government of Bihar dated October 17, 1968 purporting to appoint him temporarily as officiating District and Sessions Judge of Arrah and contends that the order of the High Court dated October 25, 1968 following close to the heels of the said Government notification amounted to his reduction in rank and was otherwise penal in nature. His further complaint is that the direction of the High Court requiring S. C. Chakravarty, the retiring District Judge of Arrah in September 1968 to hand over charge of his office to Govind Mohan Misra, respondent No. 3, by purporting to appoint him as officiating District and Sessions Judge was a discriminatory order contravening Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. The respondents to the petition are (1) to the High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar, (2) the State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, (3) Govind Mohan Misra, at present Additional District and Sessions Judge of Arrah (4) Choudary Sia Sarana Sinha, at present Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gaya and (5) Jagannath Prasad Singh, at present Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Patna.

2. The controversy arose in the following way. In September 1968 S. C. Chakravarty, District and Sessions Judge at Arrah was due to retire on September 30. The petitioner was then working there as the First Additional District and Sessions Judge. Respondent No. 3, G. M. Misra was another Additional District and Sessions Judge at Arrah designated as the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge. On the retirement of Chakravarty someone had to take charge from him and act as District and Sessions Judge either temporarily or on a permanent basis. The High Court was of opinion that Misra, respondent No. 3 was the senior Additional District and Sessions Judge at Arrah and as such should be directed to officiate in the vacancy. The High Court wanted to post one M. P. Singh as the District Judge there but there was some difficulty in the way of his taking over charge immediately. The petitioner who had joined the judicial service some years before respondent No. 3 considered this as super session of his claims. The Government of Bihar also appears to have felt that the petitioner should be appointed to act temporarily as the District and Sessions Judge at Arrah. Before the difference in the points of view of the High Court and the Government could be effectively discussed or resolved, the High Court directed Chakravarty to make over charge to respondent No. 3 which was complied with. While the Government was still undecided as to the course to be adopted it received a representation from the petitioner alleging wrongful supersession by the High Court and claiming seniority over Misra and respondents 4 and 5. This appears to have stirred the Government into immediate action by the issue of a notification of October 17, 1968 appointing the petitioner as officiating District and Sessions Judge at Arrah temporarily. This not being to the l