NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. These batch of intra court appeals preferred by the High Court of Kerala and the State of Kerala are against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.39977/2016, 38075/2017, 275/2017, 38075/2016, 275/2017, 39977/2016.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and with their consent, are disposing of these writ appeals at this stage itself.

3. The facts are not in dispute and lie within a very narrow compass. It appears that the question of fixing of the cadre strength of the cadre of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, i.e., District Judges Cadre, was a matter which was considered by the High Court in the administrative side and a recommendation was made to the State Government. The High Court had identified and requested that the cadre strength of District Judges be considered and notified as 146. The State considered the same. But, it notified only 130, instead of 146, mentioning that out of 146 posts identified, 7 are deputation posts and 9 are of family courts, which are manned by retired District Judges. Hence these 16 posts were excluded. This Government order dated 29.5.2015 was challenged before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 21.8.2015 in W.P.(C) No.12732 of 2015 & connected cases, disapproved the Government notification on the ground that no reasons were indicated for rejecting the 16 posts as aforesaid, whereby the proposed cadre strength was brought down from 146 to 130.

4. It seems, thereafter there were discussions as between the State Government and the High Court on the administrative side. The State Government then in consultation with the High Court thought it better to provide the definition of cadre with cadre strength. Accordingly, the notification was issued by the State Government on 30.8.2014 wherein the definition of cadre strength was given as under:

"Cadre Strength shall constitute all the sanctioned posts of District & Sessions Judges (including Additional District & Sessions Judges), all the sanctioned posts of Judges in the equivalent stature, all such temporary posts existing for more than six months and all such posts created by Government from time to time, in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service."

5. Having defined the cadre strength in the terms aforesaid, the State left the numerical strength to be computed by the High Court. Pursuant to this notification of the State Government, the High Court calculated and notified the cadre strength on the basis of the definition aforesaid as 169. The moment this was done, the judicial officers of the Subordinate Judiciary of this Court, through their associations, filed a representation to the High Court and thereafter instituted the writ petition. Their grievance was that temporary posts and posts of which judicial officers were deputed should not be calculated and taken in the cadre. Their submission was that temporary post cannot be included in a permanent cadre and secondly that fixing cadre strength is the duty of the State and not of the High Court.

6. The learned single Judge heard the matter and allowed the writ petitions on both the counts. The learned single Judge in effect held that when the first writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.12732/2015 & connected cases were allowed, which related only to non-inclusion of 16 posts, the State could not have gone beyond that and issued an order in terms of Exhibit P 4. The learned single Judge then was of the view that the expressions 'cadre' and 'cadre strength' in respect of a permanent cadre would necessarily mean inclusion of permanent posts only and not temporary posts and thirdly, the learned single Judge was of the view that the power was of the State to notify the cadre strength, which could not be delegated to the High Court or the administrative committee of the High Court. Thus, holding so, the Government order defining the cadre strength was set aside.