DILIP B BHOSALE, J.

1. The question of inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits has always been a matter of controversy that engaged the attention of the Supreme Court and High Courts on several occasions and there are many decisions bearing upon the controversy. This is one more.

2. The petitioners-direct recruits have instituted these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality of notification dated 14th September 2012 issued by respondent No.3-Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore (for short "the RG'') whereby, a final seniority list of District Judges has been published. In the final seniority list, according to the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 to 85, (for short "the respondent-DJs") who were promoted/appointed in the cadre of District Judge subsequent to their appointments as District Judges, have wrongly been placed above them. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the RG to redraw the seniority, taking into consideration the actual date of appointment of the petitioners (direct recruits) and the dates of promotion of the respondent-DJs in the cadre of District Judge.

3. Petitioners were appointed as District Judges under 25% category of direct recruits as provided for in Rule 4 of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 (for short "200* Rules") vide notification dated 13.2.2008. The Notification dated 13.2.2008, to the extent it is relevant reads thus:

"NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Karnataka hereby appoints the following Advocates as District Judges with immediate effect." (emphasis supplied)

4. Having regard to huge pendency of cases and for disposal of long pending sessions and other cases, the Eleventh Finance Commission recommended a scheme for creation of 1734 Fast Track Courts (for short FTCs) in the country. The Ministry of Finance sanctioned an amount of Rs. 502.90 crores as "special problem and up-gradation grant" for judicial administration. The scheme was temporary and for a period of 5 years. Government accorded its approval for the continuation of 1562 Fast Track Courts that were operational as on 31.3.2005 for a further period of 5 years i.e. up to 31st March, 2010.

5. In view of the recommendation of the 11th Finance Commission the Government of Karnataka created FTCs and decided to appoint Civil Judges as District Judges temporarily on ad-hoc basis and accordingly respondent-DJs were promoted by issuing four different notifications as ad-hoc District Judges. The respondent-DJs, at the relevant time, were working in the cadre of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.). They were promoted temporarily on ad-hoc basis to officiate as District Judges vide notifications dated 15-2-2003, 19-3- 2003, 15-11-2003 and 20-3-2004. Though a specific request was made vide letter dated 27-12-2002 by the RG, addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, requesting him to move His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and obtain orders promoting the Civil Judges (Sr.Dn.) named therein, under Article 233 of the Constitution of India as ad-hoc District Judges temporarily, subject to reversion at any time, the notifications did not make any reference to Article 233 of the Constitution of India. It would be convenient to reproduce the first notification dated 15.2.2003 (Annexure-R9), to the extent it is relevant, which reads thus:

"NOTIFICATION The following eighteen Civil Judges (Senior Division) are promoted, temporarily on ad-hoc basis to officiate as District Judges with immediate effect to man the Fast Track Courts subject to reversion at any time. (emphasis supplied)

The language of remaining three notifications dated 19.3.2003, 15.11.2003 and 20.03.2004 is similar.

5.1. Total 82 Civil Judges (Sr.Dn.) were promoted temporarily on ad hoc basis to officiate as District Judges with immediate effect to man the Fast Track Courts subject to