Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Vide order dated May 11, 2011 four questions, stated in para 22 of the order, have been referred for answer, to a Full Bench of this Court. We note the same. They are as under:

"(1) In Rakhi Ray, the Court was concerned with anticipated vacancies whereas in the present case vacancies existed even on the date of advertisement but all the vacancies not notified. Whether Rakhi Ray would cover this aspect?

(2) At the same time, it is held in Rakhi Ray that it is not permissible to fill up more vacancies than advertised. However, that has to be reconcile with Malik Mazhar Sultan.

(3) It is noted in Rakhi Ray that Rules provided for advertisement of vacancies after being determined. The question is as to whether the determined vacancies are more, whether lesser vacancies could advertised?

(4) What would be effect of order dated 20.4.2010 passed in All India Judges Association case. As per which the Court was apprised that it was advertising lesser number of vacancies than available for want of proper court accommodation and infrastructure. Whether that would amount to approval of the action taken by the Court which is precisely the subject matter of the challenge?"

2.