OAK, C. J. :- The question for consideration in these connected appeals is whether certain persons should be prohibited from functioning as District Judges in Uttar Pradesh. The three appeals arise out of a writ petition filed in the year 1967 by Shri Chandra Mohan against the State of Uttar Pradesh and 15 others.

2. Several years ago, the State Government established U. P. Higher Judicial Service. This service consists of two grades: (1) District and Sessions Judges, and (2) Civil and Sessions Judges. Under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor framed rules for appointment to U. P. Higher Judicial Service. These rules are known as U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 (hereafter referred to as the Rules). The Rules provide two separate methods for appointment of Civil and Sessions Judges. The first method is by promotion from the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The second method is by direct recruitment of advocates and Judicial Magistrates as Civil and Sessions Judges. Under these Rules, a number of persons were appointed to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service between 1953 and 1964.

3. Sri Chandra Mohan is a member of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch). In the year 1965 he was officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge. He apprehended that direct recruitment of advocates and Judicial Magistrates to U. P. Higher Judicial Service was likely to affect his chances of promotion adversely. So, he filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of advocates and Judicial Magistrates to U. P. Higher Judicial Service. That was Writ Petition No. 526 of 1965.

4. That writ petition was partly allowed by this Court on 21-2-1966. It was held that Sri Om Prakash was not eligible for appointment to U. P. Higher Judicial Service. In other respects, the petition was dismissed. Sri Chandra Mohan took up the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court on 8-8-1966. It was held that Judicial Magistrates were not eligible for appointment as Civil and Sessions Judges. It was further held that the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules are constitutionally void, as they contravened Article 233 of the Constitution. The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court ran thus:-

"In the result, we hold that the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules providing for the recruitment of District Judges are constitutionally void and, therefore, the appointments made thereunder were illegal.

We set aside the order of the High Court and issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent not to make any appointment by direct recruitment to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service in pursuance of the selections made under the said rules. The 1st respondent will pay the costs of the appellant. The other respondents will bear their own costs."

The case is reported in AIR 1966 SC 1987.

5. This decision of the Supreme Court created a serious situation. According to the judgment, appointment of several persons as District Judges during the course of some ten years became illegal. Parliament intervened in order to meet the serious situation, and enacted the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act 1966. By this amendment, Article 233A was inserted in the Constitution. Article 233A of the Constitution ran thus:-

"Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,-

(a) (i) no appointment of any person already in the judicial service of a State or of any person who has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader, to be a district judge in that State, and

(ii) no posting, promotion or transfer of any such person as a district judge, made at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966 otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Article 233 or Article 235 shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal or void by reason only of the fact that such appointment, posting, promotion or transfer was not made in accordanc