Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J. :- This writ petition has had a chequered career and involves a competition regarding seniority between the petitioner G. R. Luthra and respondent No. 3 D. R. Khanna who were simultaneously recruited as members of the Punjab Judicial Service. The case appears to have travelled through various stages both in the High Court and in this court on different aspects. After hearing counsel for the parties in the view that we propose to take in this petition 1901 and also because respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit that he would not press this Court for giving any decision regarding his seniority over the petitioner if the submission of respondent No. 3 regarding his appointment under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service is decided against him, it is not necessary of us to give any finding on the scope and ambit of Rule 6 (3) of the Rules.

2. In view of these facts the controversy in this case has been very much narrowed down and the point for decision falls within a very narrow compass. In order however to understand the question involved, it may be necessary to give a short history and a brief resume of the manner in which the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were a