Judgment :

Fakk I R Mohamed Ibrahi M Kaliful La, J.

1. These Appeals are directed against a common Judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 31.01.2000 rendered in S.W.P. No.333 of 1999 and O.W.P. No.1641 of 1999 and other connected writ petitions. The Appellants herein were Petitioners in S.W.P. No.333 of 1999 and S.W.P. No.260 of 1999. In the Writ Petition(s) the challenge was to the selection and appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge borne on the cadre of the service constituted under the Rules, namely, "The Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1983" (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1983"). The recruitment and appointment to the said cadre under the aforesaid Rules is from two sources, namely, 75% by way of promotion of in service candidates and 25% by direct recruitment. The challenge in the Writ Petition(s) related to the selection and appointment of candidates under the direct quota pursuant to the modified Notification No.16 of 1997 dated 05.09.1997. The earlier notification was Notification No.50 of 1995 dated 01.08.1995. As per the modified notification, four posts were advertised out of which two were for general category and one each for reserved categories of Schedule Caste and resident of Backward Area. The High Court conducted the written examination and declared the list of successful candidates. Candidates were called for viva- voce test on 27.02.1999. They were interviewed by the Committee constituted by the High Court.

2. Mr. S.C. Mansotra, who appeared before us as appellant- in-person, in fact, appeared before the High Court and raised as many as six contentions, namely, that the post of District and Sessions Judge being a constitutional post and consequently, it cannot be classified or placed along with the highest service of the administration/bureaucratic service and the mention of the post in the rule was unconstitutional which provides for 50% reservation to different classes of citizens in the society. Then it was contended that the selection was not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed as contained in Rules 4 to 9 of 1983 Rules. In that, it was contended that sub- rule (2) of Rule 5 was not complied with. It was also contended that the process of selection was not properly carried out as mandated by Rule 7. The contention was that there was no Selection Committee constituted by the Chief Justice. It was contended that the High Court was not justified in filling-up the posts by candidates belonging to reserved categories. It was then contended that the proviso to Rule 4 was unconstitutional inasmuch as recruitment of 25% quota would be restricted to permanent cadre strength. It was then contended that the determination of seniority between the direct recruits and promotees should be based on the date of appointment in the cadre.

3. The High Court by the impugned judgment answered all the points raised in seriatim. As far as the argument that the post of District and Sessions Judge is a Constitutional post, the High Court has rightly held that except making a bald averment Appellants could not substantiate the said contention. Consequently, the Division Bench held that the mention of the said post in Rule 9 of 1994 Rules did not violate any provision of law so far as it related to provision made for reservation. As far as violation of Rule 5(2) of 1983 Rules was concerned, the High Court has noted that the requirement of holding a medical test under the said sub- rule was only directory and not mandatory and, therefore, the holding of the said test after the viva-voce test did not in any way affect the selection made. As far as the contention based on Rule 7 that no Selection Committee was nominated by the Chief Justice, the High Court after referring to the proceedings relating to the selection found that the Chief Justice constituted a Committee for conducting the interview of the candidates, who passed the written