JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:— Before us are the members of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (hereinafter called the Service). Promotees and the direct recruits, as usual, are in the fray. This is their second round of litigation in this Court. Earlier in P. K. Dixit v. State of U. P., (1988) 1 SCR 398, this Court directed the preparation of fresh seniority list in accordance with the observations made, therein. The Allahabad High Court thereafter framed and circulated final seniority list of the service on August 25, 1988. Both promotees and direct recruits are not satisfied with the same. They have challenged the said seniority list, inter alia, on the ground that it is not in conformity with the directions of this Court in Dixits case.

2. We may briefly state the necessary facts. The service was initially governed by statutory rules called the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 (hereinafter called 1953 Rules). Recruitment to the service under the said rules was from two sources, by promotion and the direct recruitment. In Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1967) 1 SCR 77 this Court struck down the 1953 Rules so far as the said rules provided direct recruitment to the service. As a consequence there was no direct recruitment to the Service till the year 1975-76. The members of the service promoted under the 1953 rules were designated as Civil and Sessions Judges.

3. On May 8, 1974 the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Abolition of Cadre of the Civil and Sessions Judges) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called 1974 rules) came into force. Under these rules the cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges was abolished. Rules 2 and 3 of 1974 Rules, which are relevant, are reproduced hereafter:

2. Abolition of the Cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges. - With effect from the date of commencement of these rules, the cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges shall stand abolished and the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service shall, with effect from the said date, consist of the posts of District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges only.

3. Creation of posts and confirmation- (1) Upon the abolition of the cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges, permanent and temporary posts of additional District and Sessions Judges equal in number of the permanent and temporary posts, respectively of Civil and Sessions Judges existing immediately before the date of commencement of these rules shall stand created with effect from the said date, and the officers holding the posts of Civil and Sessions Judges immediately before the said date shall become Additional District and Sessions Judges and be designated accordingly.

(2) An officer who is confirmed on the post of Civil and Sessions Judge before the commencement of these rules shall with effect from, the date of such confirmation, be deemed to be confirmed on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.

4. It is, thus, obvious that the cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges stood abolished and a new cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges, consisting of permanent and temporary posts equal in number of the permanent and temporary posts respectively of Civil and Sessions Judges, came into existence under the 1974 Rules. The Civil and Sessions Judges holding permanent or temporary posts in the Service were re-designated as Additional District and Sessions Judges with effect from May 8, 1974, the date when the 1974 Rules were enforced. On that date 271 officers were working as Additional District and Sessions Judges against 235 posts (153 permanent and 82 temporary) in the Service.

5. The Service was reconstituted and given a fresh-look by the rules framed under Article 309 read with Article 233 of the Constitution of India called the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the 1975 Rules). These rules came into force with effect from April 5, 1975. The relevant Rules 5, 6, 8 and 26 are reproduced hereinafter:

5. Sources of recruitment.- The recru