Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

1. These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raise common questions of law, relating to the filling up of vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judges (Junior Division) pursuant to the notifications issued by the High Court for direct recruitment, and hence are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The first petition (PIL No.31 of 2015) is filed by a designated Senior Advocate practicing in this Court. The 2nd and 3rd petitions (W.P. Nos.5394 & 5433 of 2015) are filed by two advocates, and the fourth petition (W.P. No.5415 of 2015) is filed by a Superintendent in the Rangareddy District Court.

3. In the PIL, petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondent – High Court in not bifurcating subordinate judiciary and for notifying 97 vacancies of the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) for the year 2014 vide Notification No.15/2014-RC, dated 9.1.2014, and consequential Notification No.15/2014-RC, dated 1.2.2014, inviting applications for recruitment to the said 97 posts (for short, “2014 Notification”); and so also similar Notification bearing No.54/2015-RC, dated 5.2.2015, notifying 34 vacancies of the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) for the year 2015, and consequential Notification No.54/2015-RC, dated 9.2.2015, inviting applications for recruitment to the said 34 posts (for short, “2015 Notification”) as null and void, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India and so also Part-VIII of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. Further he prays for a consequential direction to the respondent – High Court to undertake the process of appointment of District Judges, and recruitment to Judicial Service in both the States only after bifurcation of subordinate judiciary into the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service and the Telangana State Judicial Service.

4. In the remaining three writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the very same notifications issued by the respondent – High Court contending that the notifications are illegal and violative of Article 234 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2015 notified vide G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 11.2.2015 (for short, ‘2015 Rules’). The impugned Notifications are under Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, “2007 Rules”).

5. In order to understand the controversy and to address the questions of law raised in these petitions, a detailed reference to the facts/sequence of events would be necessary.

5.1 The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (Act No.6 of 2014) (for short, ‘the Act’) received the assent of the President of India on 1st March, 2014. The Act provides for reorganization of the then existing State of Andhra Pradesh and the matters connected therewith. The Act created a separate State of Telangana for the betterment of social, economic, political and other aspirations in view of the longstanding demand of the people in the said region. The Act was published in the Gazette of India on the 1st March, 2014. The ‘appointed day’, as defined under Section 2 (a) is “2nd of June, 2014”. By operation of the Act, two Separate States have been formed splitting the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. The city of Hyderabad in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as provided for in Section 5 of the Act shall be the common capital of the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh for such period not exceeding ten years.

5.2 Section 30 of the Act states that on and from the appointed day the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution read with Section 31 of the Act. It further provides that the Judges of the High Cour