JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. “It cannot be, there is no power in Venice

Can alter a decree established.

’Twill be recorded for a precedent,

And many an error by the same example

Will rush into the state. It cannot be.”

- Shakespeare, (Portia, in The Merchant of Venice).

2. Given the difference of opinion amongst two Hon’ble Judges of this Court, while deciding the Letters Patent Appeals, Hon’ble the Chief Justice referred both the Intra Court Appeals to this Court as a third Judge and since both the appeals challenge the common judgments, hence are being taken up together.

3. The appellants/petitioners, who were appointed in the cadre of District Judges/Additional District Judges, by limited competitive examination and by promotion respectively, had come up before this Court seeking seniority following the post-based roster, from the date of their appointments, by pushing down the direct recruits below them, because at the time of the appointments of direct recruits, which was prior in time, no posts existed in their category, and thus the appellants were deemed to have been appointed against the higher point of the roster.

4. The petition filed by Mr. S.C. Kainthla was registered as CWP No. 2061 of 2018, and the petition of Mr. Rajeev Bhardwaj as CWP No. 2292 of 2018. The pleadings and prayer clauses of both these petitions are almost similar, and the reference is being made to CWP No. 2061 of 2018, filed by Mr. S.C. Kainthla. The prayer clauses, in both the writ petitions, are also almost identical, with minor additions, and read as follows: In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to:

(i) create the cadre of Civil Judge Senior Division w.e.f. 1.7.1996 in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All India Judges’ Association and Others versus Union of India and Others, (2002) 4 SCC 247, and I.A. No.334 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) dated 28.4.2016, and to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner;

(ii) follow the post-based roster w.e.f. 31.3.2003 by following the report of the Hon’ble Judges Committees and declare the petitioner senior to Respondents No. 3 and 4 (And in CWP No. 2292 of 2018, of Mr. Rajeev Bhardwaj senior to respondents 3, 4, & 5), and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including considering him for elevation as Judge of High court by placing relevant material before the competent authority.

(iii) quash the seniority/gradation lists circulated w.e.f. 1.1.2005 onwards particularly gradation list Annexure P-16, circulated on 18.1.2018 showing petitioner junior to respondents No.3 and 4, (And in CWP No. 2292 of 2018, of Mr. Rajeev Bhardwaj respondents 3, 4, & 5) as being contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association Case (supra) and H.P. Judicial Services Rules, 2004.

(iv) (In CWP No. 2292 of 2018, of Mr. Rajeev Bhardwaj) quash the order dated 31.08.2018 (Annexure P-17) disposing of the representation and allow the representation filed by the petitioner.

(v) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case;

(vi) direct the respondents to produce the entire record of this case before this Hon’ble Court for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as duty bound forever pray.

5. Both the appellant(s) had initially joined as Sub Judges and at that time Himachal Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1973, were in force. As per 1973 Rules, the appointment to the cadre of District Judges was based on the 2:1 ratio between the Direct recruits and the Promotees. On 1.2.1984, the appellant, Mr. S.C. Kainthla, was appointed as Sub J