ORDER

1. Issue notice

2. Challenge in these writ petitions is to Advertisement No. 1 of 2008 issued by the Orissa High Court. The petitioners have been selected to function as ad hoc Additional District Judges in terms of the judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Lai v. Union of India. It is their grievance that 16 posts advertised also include the 9 posts presently held by the petitioners in the two writ petitions. It is pointed out that the eligibility criterion fixed in the advertisement rules out the present petitioners. Firstly, some of them are above the maximum age of 45 years and secondly, being judicial officers; they cannot apply for posts advertised for members of the Bar. It is also pointed out that in terms of what has been stated by this Court in Brij Mohan easel, at para 10, Direction 4, they are to be continued (in the ad hoc posts) belonging to the Fast Track Courts, and, thereafter, in respect of regular posts available, after the Fast Track Courts cease to function. Their cases are to be considered subject to their performance being found satisfactory. Their stand is that they have been continued from time to time. Obviously, their performance was found to be sati