JUDGMENT

SARKARIA J.:—This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 132 and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, is directed against an appellate judgment of January 6, 1969, of the High Court of Allahabad. It arises out of these facts:

2. U. P. Higher Judicial Service had two grades: (1) District and Sessions Judges and (2) Civil and Sessions Judges. Under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the Governor framed rules governing recruitment and other conditions of this service. The rules are known as U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 (hereinafter called the 1953 Rules). Under the 1953 Rules, the appointment of Civil and Sessions Judges was made by two separate methods. The first method was by promotion from the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The second method was by recruitment of Advocates and Judicial Magistrates as Civil and Sessions Judges. Under the 1953 Rules a number of persons were appointed to U. P. Higher Judicial Service between 1953 and 1964.

3. The appellant, Chandra Mohan, is a permanent member of the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch). In the year 1965, he was officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge. Since he apprehended that direct recruitment of Advocates and Judicial Magistrates to the Service would adversely affect the chances of his confirmation and promotion, he filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the 1953 Rules and the appointments thereunder, of Advocates and Judicial Magistrates, to the Service. The writ petition was partly allowed by the High Court of February 21, 1966. It was held that Shri Om Prakash respondent was not eligible for appointment to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service.

4. Against that judgment, the writ-petitioner came in further appeal to this Court. His appeal was allowed by this Court by a judgment, dated August 8, 1966. This judgment is reported as Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P., (1967) 1 SCR 77. Thereby this Court held: (a) that the 1953 Rules providing for recruitment of District Judges contravened the Constitutional Mandate of Article 233 (1) and (2) and therefore the rules and the appointments made thereunder were illegal: (b) the 1953 Rules empowering the Governor to recruit District Judges from the Judicial Officers were also unconstitutional because the expression "Service" in cl. (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution can only mean "Judicial Service" and all Judicial Officers of the State of U. P. were not members of the Judicial Service. Therefore, the recruitment of Judicial Officer-respondents was bad.

5. As a result of these findings, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing Respondent 1 (State) not to make any appointment by direct recruitment to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service in pursuance of the selections made under the 1953 Rules.

6. This decision created a difficult situation. To remedy the same. The Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 inserted Article 233A in the Constitution. 1484

7. Thereafter on February 1, 1967. The appellant herein again filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondents 2 to 16, from Advocates and Judicial Magistrate, between 1953 and 1964. Respondents 13, 14 and 15 were parties to the earlier appeal before this Court.

8. In his writ petition (No. 397 of 1967), the appellant contended that the Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act was unconstitutional inasmuch as it affected the provisions of Articles 129, 141 and 142 of the Constitution, and could not have been enacted without the ratification the State Legislatures under proviso (b) to Article 368 of the Constitution. The writ-petitioner further challenged the constitutional validity of the 1953 Rules on the ground that they make unfair discrimination between direct recruits and promotees, and as such, contravene Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was alleged that Respondents 4, 5 and 6 herein were recruited to the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in 1940 throu