Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- These Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution involve the consideration of a two-fold controversy: first, as to the rules governing seniority between direct recruits and promotees appointed to the Superior Judicial Services of Punjab and Haryana and second, between the control over district courts and subordinate courts vested in the High Court by Art. 235 and the power conferred upon the Governor by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed, inter alia, to the Judicial Service of the State.

2. We have two sets of Writ Petitions before us which involve identical points except for one material difference which we will mention later. Writ petitions 4228 to 4230 of 1978 are filed by three Judicial Officers of the State of Haryana who are promotees, that is to say, who were promoted to the Superior Judicial Service of the State from the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Respondents 1 and 2 to those Writ Petitions are the State of Haryana and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana respectively. Respondent 3, Shri N. S. Rao, is a direct recruit, having been appointed from the Bar to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. Writ Petition 266 of 1979 is filed by twenty-two promotees, that is to say, those who were promoted to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service from the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Respondents 1 and 2 to that petition are the State of Punjab and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana respectively. Respondents 3 to 11 were appointed directly from the Bar to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service.

3. Some of the more important grievances of the petitioners are that their seniority qua direct recruits is wrongly and unjustly made to depend upon the fortuitous circumstance of the date of their confirmation in the Superior Judicial Service, that even if a substantive vacancy is available, the confirmation of a promotee in that vacancy is postponed arbitrarily and indefinitely; that promotees are treated with an unequal hand qua direct recruits: for example, a promotee, despite his satisfactory performance and the availability of a substantive vacancy in which he can be confirmed, is continued in an officiating capacity until after a direct recruit completes his probation and is due for confirmation; and that, the High Court applies the principle of rotation as between promotees and direct recruits at the time of their confirmation when, in fact, all that the relevant rules provide for is the application of a rule of quota at the time of their appointment.

4. These grievances of the promotees can best be understood in the light of the following facts : The three petitioners in the Haryana Writ Petitions were selected for recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) after qualifying in a competitive examination. They were appointed as Subordinate Judges in 1950. By Act 3 of 1966, the State of Haryana came into existence on November 1, 1966. Petitioners 1 and 2 - Shri B. S. Yadav and Shri V. P. Aggarwal were promoted in an officiating capacity to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service on July 28 and October 7, 1967 respectively, while petitioner No. 3, Shri A. N. Aggarwal, was promoted similarly on March 27, 1968. Respondent 3, Shri N. S. Rao who as a member of the Bar was working as a District Attorney, was appointed directly to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service with effect from July 7, 1970. The normal period of his two years probation expired on July 7, 1972 but before the issuance of the orders of his confirmation, a complaint dated August 2, 1972 was received against him. That complaint was inquired into by a High Court Judge who, by his report of March 1973, held it to be unfounded. Respondent 3 was thereupon confirmed by the High Court as a District and Sessions Judge with effect from March 30, 1973. By a notification dated May 4, 1973 that date was corrected to July