( 1 ) THE appellant, first appointed as an Additional Judge of this Court on February 11, 1949 and later confirmed as a permanent Judge in January 1950, claims to be in office still. He has preferred this appeal from an order of Banerjee, J. , dismissing his application under Article 226 of the construction for the issue of a Rule on the Chief Justice to show cause why the latter should not give direction recalling some orders made by him allegedly interfering with the discharge of his duties and functions of a Judge of this Court.

( 2 ) SINCE no Rule was issued on the appellant's writ petition no affidavit-in-opposition was used and the materials before us are the said petition of the appellant with annexures thereto and the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court which has a very important bearing on the question before us.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that if the Appellant is still a Judge he must be held entitled to the rights and privileges of the office and be allowed to discharge the duties attendant thereon. The controversy about the appellant's claim to continue in office arises out of certain proceedings had regarding the determination of his