Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

These Writ Petitions relate to the recruitment of Munsiff-Magistrates in the Kerala Judicial Service.

2. By the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, hereinafter called the "Special Rules", for short, which came into force with effect from 1-1-1992, a common service called "The Kerala Judicial Service" was constituted in the place of the then existing Kerala Civil Judicial Service and the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service. The officers in Category No.2 as per R.3(2) of the Special Rules are the Munsiff-Magistrates.

3. R.5 of the Special Rules provides that direct recruitment and transfer, in the manner provided in sub-r.(3) of that Rule, shall be the methods of appointment to the category of Munsiff-Magistrates. Out of every four vacancies arising in that category, the first, second and third vacancies are to be filled by direct recruitment and the fourth vacancy is to be filled by transfer from among the eight categories enlisted under sub-r.(3) of R.5. In the absence of suitable and qualified persons for appointment by transfer, the vacancies reserved for such appointment shall also he filled up by direct recruitment.

4. As per R.10(1) of the Special Rules, among other things, a period of five years practice at the Bar was prescribed for an Advocate to be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment with certain relaxations for members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.

5. Sub-r.(2) of R.10 of the Special Rules provided that for recruitment by transfer, an aspiring officer in service ought to have functioned at least for a period of two years in any one or more of the categories enumerated under R.5(3) and ought to have practised as an Advocate for a period of not less than three years prior to his appointment into service. The period of two years of in-service experience that was prescribed, was to he excluding the period of service, if any, not counting for probation.

6. In 1993, disposing of R.P.No.249 of 1992 in W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989, the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India ((1993) 4 SCC 288), hereinafter, the "All India Judges' Association 1993", held, among other things, that the legal practice of three. years should be made one of the essential qualifications for recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy. The rules for recruitment of judicial officers were directed to be amended forthwith, to incorporate those directions.

7. In 2002, as per the judgment dated 21-3-2002 in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India ((2002) 4 SCC 247), hereinafter, the "All India Judges' Association 2002", the Apex Court directed the High Courts and the State Governments to amend the Service Rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in three years' practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service. It was further recommended that the fresh recruits into the judicial service should he imparted training of not less than one year, preferably two years.

8. In spite of the aforesaid directions being issued by the Apex Court on 21-3-2(X)2, the proceedings for amendment of the Special Rules in terms of those directions were not generated by the competent authority, though in terms of Art.234 of the Constitution of India, the making or amendment of the Special Rules for the judicial service has to be by the Governor, after consultation with the High Court. It appears that, placed in this situation, the Registry of the High Court prepared a draft for the amendment of the Special Rules and forwarded it to the Government, with the approval of the Full Court.

9. The Government thereafter arranged a discussion with the service organisations, regarding the amendment of the Special Rules, on the proposals of the High Court. The Registrar of the High Court was also addressed to attend the meeting. The Registrar found it quite unnecessary to attend the meeting, because no alteration or modification