1. These appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 27/09/2013, in Writ Petition Nos. 41634-691/2012 connected with Writ Petition No. 28147/2013. Writ Appeal Nos. 6249-56/2013 have been filed by the respondents before the learned Single Judge while Writ Appeal Nos. 6514 & 6516-22/2013 have been filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, CRG' for short).

2. The controversy in these proceedings relates to the inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits in the cadre of District Judges in the wake of the establishment of Fast Track Courts (FTCs) in the State For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status m the Writ Petitions.

Factual Background:

3. The Writ Petitions were filed by the direct recruits assailing Notification dated 14/09/2012 issued by appellant in W. A. No, 6514/2013 and connected appeals i.e., Respondent IMo.3-RG in the writ petitions, under which final seniority list of the District Judges was published. In that list, Respondent Nos.11 to 85 in the aforesaid writ appeals i.e., Respondent Nos.4 to 85 in the writ petitions were the District Judges promoted to that cadre under various Notifications issued by the State Government. The grievance of the petitioners was that, they had been wrongly placed below Respondent Nos.4 to 85. Under these circumstances, the petitioners sought redoing of the seniority list by taking into consideration the actual date of appointment of the petitioners i.e,, the direct recruits in the year 2008 and the date of promotion of the promotees to the cadre of District Judges which according to them was in the year 2009.

4. Learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of the petitioners and sec aside the Notification dated 14/09/2012 i.e., Final Seniority List of the District Judges, published by RG. A direction was issued to redo the seniority list by taking into account the actual dates of appointment of the petitioners (direct recruits) in the year 2008 and the dates of promotion of the promotees in the cadre of District Judges in the year 2009. Being aggrieved by the observations and directions of Learned Single Judge, the same are assailed by the promotees as well as the RG.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as District Judge in 25% category of direct recruits provided under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 ('2004 Rules' for short) by Notification dated 13/02/2008. Their appointment was pursuant to Article 233 of the Constitution.

6. On account of large pendency of cases and for speedy disposal of Sessions Cases as well as other cases, Eleventh Finance Commission had recommended a Scheme for creation of i734 Fast Track Courts ‘FTCs') for the entire country. A special fund was sanctioned for the said purpose-. The FTC Scheme was for a period of five years. The Central Government accorded its approval for continuation of 1,562 FTCs till 31/03/2005 and for a further period of five years upto 31/03/2010. Pursuant to this Scheme, the Government of Karnataka created 93 FTCs in the State between 29/05/2001 and 20/03/2004 and it was decided to appoint Civil Judges (Senior Division) as District Judges on ad hoc basis and the respondent promotees were promoted as ad hoc District Judges under four different Notifications dated 15/02/2003, 19/03/2003, 15/11/2003 and 20/03/2004.

The Notifications stated that they were promoted temporarily on ad hoc basis to officiate as District Judges in the FTCs subject to reversion at any time. No separate Rules were framed in the State for appointment of ad hoc Judges to the FTCs, unlike certain other states.

7. Totally, 82 Civil Judges (Senior Division) were promoted temporarily, on ad hoc basis to officiate as District Judges in the FTCs under the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 Rules (for short 1983 Rules'). These promotees took charge and functioned as ad hoc