Judgment

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues involved in the above appeals are identical, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. We, however, refer to the facts dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court in SLP(C) 11924-25/2012 by judgment dated 02.03.2012.

3. The challenge in the writ petitions was to the appointment made by the High Court to the post of Direct Recruit District Judges in the unfilled reserve vacancies, to the extent of 34 in number by way of promotion from the ‘in service candidates’ by applying Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants have come forward with these appeals.

4. To trace the brief facts, on 15.04.2009 the High Court notified and called for applications for filling up 68 vacancies in the Higher Judicial Service. Of the 68 vacancies, 24 vacancies were meant for open category, 21 for Other Backward Classes (OBC), 21 for SC and 2 for ST. It is not in dispute that all the 24 vacancies in the open category got filled up on merits. Of the