G.O. varying and refixing seniority.

These petitions raise for consideration very difficult questions as to the construction of several orders of Government in relation to the constitution of the judicial service in this State subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution and the validity of the orders issued by the State Government relating to the seniority among the classes of officers constituting that service.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 1131 of 1956 is a Judicial District Magistrate who challenges an order passed by the Government in May, 1956, altering to his prejudice the seniority accorded to him by orders of Government issued in 1951 and confirmed by them in 1954. W. P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 1956 have been filed by the officers Who have been benefited by the order impugned in W.P. No 1131 of 1956 and these seek to question the validity of the appointment of the petitioner and of another Judicial District Magistrate situated like him by the issue of writs of quo warranto.

Logically therefore the matters set out in W.P. Nos. 1353 of 1956 and 1354 of 1956 have to be considered first since if the challenge to the validity of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1131 of 1956 succeeded, the earlier petition would become infructuous and would not need to be dealt with. In view of this, W.P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 1956 were heard first and I propose to follow this order in this judgment also. In doing so, I shall first set out in chronological order the several Government Orders which have been passed by Government which have a bearing on the points in controversy, the construction and validity of which were debated in these petitions. I might at once mention that most of these Government Orders and the other statutory provisions are relevant to the consideration of both the certiorari as well as the quo warranto petitions. As there is very little difference between the allegation in W.P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 1956 it would be sufficient if I set out the facts of the earlier numbered one.

There are 25 petitioners in W.P. No. 1353 of 1956 and all of them are members of the Madras State Judicial Service who were originally recruited as District Munsifs in the Madras Subordinate Civil Judicial Service. The respondents to this petition are Sri C. D. Venkataraman, District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanyakumari District and the State of Madras. The prayer in the petition is that the Court might issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto calling upon the 1st respondent (Sri CD. Venkataraman)

" to show cause by what authority he claimed to hold, enjoy and perform the duties, rights and privileges of a member of the State Judicial Service and in particular of his office of the District Magistrate (Judicial) in the Madras State Judicial Service".

I do not consider it necessary to set out the matters on the basis of which this relief is asked for as it would be convenient to deal with the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioners at the hearing by their learned counsel. I shall therefore proceed to set out the necessary facts detailing at the same time the statutory provisions under which the Government proceeded from time to time indicating the contentions raised by the parties in relation to these several Government Orders.

Sri C. D. Venkataraman was an advocate of this Court and was practising in|Madras. While so, he was appointed as Chief Assistant Crown Prosecutor at Madras. Thereafter he was appointed temporarily to the post of a Presidency Magistrate in the city on 18th June, 1946. Till that date, Presidency Magistrates were being appointed only from Deputy Collectors and the post of a Presidency Magistrate formed part of the Madras Civil Service (Executive Branch). Sri C. D. Venkataraman was appointed as a Presidency Magistrate under rule 9-A of the Madras Provincial and Subordinate Service Rules which read:

" Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadr