ORDER :

Permission to file SLPs is granted.

Taken on board.

1. State of U.P. and their officials aggrieved by the interim orders dated 16.07.2010 and 25.08.2010 passed in W.P. No. 1872 of 1986 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow have filed the above SLPs.

2. W.P. No. 1872 of 1986 was filed by one Dr. Neeraj Chaubey for redressal of his grievance regarding an advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. In the said advertisement, the eligibility criteria was fixed as teaching experience of 7 years whereas according to the Statuto, the teaching experience required is only 5 years. The aforesaid writ petition was not listed as per the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court which passed the impugned order. The Registry of the High Court was directed to show cause as well as a cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded on the Joint Registrar of the High Court. In response to the aforesaid direction, one of the officials of the Registry in his affidavit highlighted certain problems about want of space for keeping the court records, sitting space for officials and officers of the Registry. Taking note of the said facts, the Division Bench, in the order dated 16.07.2010, directed the State Government to submit a Status Report about sanctioning of funds for construction of new High Court Building Complex at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. It is further seen that even after filing of Status Report and affidavit highlighting the steps taken, by the impugned order dated 25.08.2010, the same Division Bench directed the Cabinet Secretary, the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary (Law), State of U.P. and Member Secretary, Planning Commission and representative of Ministry of Law and Justice not below the rank of Joint Secretary, Government of India to appear in person along with the records on the next date of hearing on 20.09.2010. Questioning both the above said directions, State of U.P. filed these SLPs.

3. Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for Oudh Bar Association.

4. Though Oudh Bar Association is not a party in these SLPs, but considering the importance of the issue, the said Bar Association intends to file appropriate petition before the High Court for construction of the new High Court Building Complex at Lucknow. We heard their counsel also.

5. At the out set, we may point out that directions regarding construction of new High Court building and early sanction of required funds for execution of the work cannot be faulted with. In fact, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow needs more spacious building as early as possible. However, we are concerned about the procedure adopted by the Division Bench issuing such directions in an unconnected matter treating it as PIL and keeping the issue before the same Bench.

6. In this regard, it is brought to our notice that the Full Bench decision of the same High Court of Allahabad, while answering the reference made to a larger bench in W.P. No. 34197 of 2010, Smt. Maya Dixit and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 13.09.2010, dealt with the issues involved herein.

7. The High Court had taken note of various judgments of this Court including State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan, AIR 1982 SC 1198, Inder Mani vs. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 587, State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 1, R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai, (2000) 2 SCC 391 and Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 and various judgments of High Courts and came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of t