G.S.SISTANI, J.

1. Arguments in both these matters have been addressed by learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself.

2. With the consent of counsel for both the parties, present writ petitions are taken up for hearing and they are being disposed of by a common order.

3. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners seek an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner(s) against the vacant posts of Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS), to be selected from amongst the Bar, as were at the time of completion of selection process, commenced vide notification dated 28.12.2013.

4. For the sake of convenience, facts in the case of W.P.(C) 8285/2015 are being noticed.

5. As per the petitions, the petitioners are practising Advocates. On 28.12.2013, an advertisement was published by respondent no.2 inviting applications from practising Advocates for filling up 14 posts (10 posts in the General category, 01 posts in the Scheduled Caste category and 03 posts in Scheduled Tribes category) in Delhi Higher Judicial Service under direct recruitment from the Bar. Preliminary examination was held on 6.4.2014. Both the petitioners qualified in the preliminary examinations and, thus, became eligible for the written examination (Mains). In the month of April, 2014. Based on a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 983/2014, titled as Nishant S. Diwan v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General & Anr., one post of General category was reserved for Physically Handicapped candidate, thereby reducing the total number of posts advertised for General category from 10 to 09. A written examination (Mains) was held on 9.8.2014 wherein both the petitioners were declared successful. The petitioner in W.P.(C)8285/2015 secured sixth position in General category while the petitioner in W.P.(C)9443/2015 secured eighth position. The petitioners appeared before the interview board constituted by respondent no.2 for screening of the candidates for selection to the post of District Judge against vacancies as on 19.5.2015.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that on 14.7.2015 an affidavit was filed by respondent no.2 in Civil Appeal No.1867/2006, titled as Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., pending before the Supreme Court of India, deposing that respondents in the selection process of District Judges were filling up 14 vacancies. The final result of DHJS was declared on 28.7.2015 wherein the name of petitioner in W.P.(C)8285/2015 secured 11th rank while the petitioner in W.P.(C)9443/2015 secured 13th rank. Nine candidates for General category were selected in the months of July/August, 2015. Since the names of petitioners did not figure in the first nine candidates, they made their representations to respondent no.2 for considering their candidature for the post of District Judges in the aforestated selection process. Since no response to the aforesaid representations have been received, the petitioners have been forced to knock the doors of this Court for justice.

7. Mr.Sharma and Mr.Uppal, learned senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners, have relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazar Sultan (supra), more particularly para 7, in support of their submissions with regard to fixing up of a detailed calendar with respect to conducting of examinations twice a year and filling up vacancies. Para 7 of the order reads as under:

“7. For filling up of vacancies in the cadre of District Judges, accepting the proposal to which none has objected, except in the manner hereinafter noticed, we direct as under :

A. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of District Judge in respect of (a) Twenty five per cent vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar; and

(b) Twenty five per ce