( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two Special Civil Application are employees of the High Court of Gujarat in the cadre of Assistants. By way of these Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, they have challenged the promotion of respondent Nos. 2 to 15 on the post of Section officers. Both the Special Civil Application rest on similar facts, raise common question of law, except in Special Civil Application No. 351 of 1998, wherein the validity of Rule 47 (2) of the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Condition of Services of Staff) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1992), is also challenged, are heard together and disposed of by the common order.

( 2 ) THE Honble the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, in exercise of powers conferred by Art. 229 of the Constitution and all enabling provisions, framed the Rules governing the service conditions of all the members of the High Court Staff known as High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Condition of Services of Staff) Rules,. 1992. The said Rules repealed the earlier Rules of 1964. Rule 4 of Rules of 1992, categorises staff of the High Court in four classes. Higher posts of registrar General down upto Assistant Registrar is placed in the category of Class I Officers. Category of Class II Gazetted Officers consist of Section Officers, Private Secretaries to Honble Judges etc. Class III, Non-Gazetted posts consists of Stenographer Grade II, Junior Clerk, Driver etc. Class IV consists of Jamadar, Peon etc. Rule 47 provides for promotion on different posts. Promotion on the post of "section Officer" is effected from the post of Assistants and Translators strictly on merit and on the basis of record performance. Essential eligibility for promotion is passing prescribed Departmental Examination and five years experience on the post of Assistant or Translator.

( 3 ). In July, 1997, the Registrar commenced the process of promotion for the post of Section Officers. The vacancies were determined in accordance with the government Resolution of General Administration Department dated 27-1-1978, as follows :

( 21 ) IN the case of Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, reported in AIR 1974 SC 87, the Apex Court pointed out that "merit" is capable of being judged from different angles. The Court, in para 17 said, thus -"merit is certainly an elusive factor capable of being judged very differently from different angles or, by applications varying tests of it by different persons, or, by the same persons, at different times. "in the said case, passage from Leonard D. Whites "introduction to Public administration" had been referred with approval by the Court wherein it is said that the principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole organisation. The Court further said that the main interest to be served is the public interest not the personal interest of the members of the official group concerned. In case of selection on merit the Court warned in these words :"no doubt, care has to be taken that it is so operated as to really secure the choice of the most meritorious by honest and rigorous applications of correct and proper tests. "thus, there is heavy duty cast upon the employer to evolve a correct and proper test and then to apply the same correctly. It is needless to emphasize that merit is given due weight age in the matter of promotion, especially for senior appointment, to ensure greater efficiency in the functioning of the establishment and also to provide adequate incentives to the employees to give their best. Once promotion by merit alone is provided in the recruitment rules, the first stage is evolution of proper mechanism for determination of merit and the second stage is its rigorous and honest application. A sound mechanism or process to determine the merit is of vital importance. If the promotions are governed by faulty