Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The dispute between the promotees and direct recruits in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has been the unending process since decades. Either side being the member of same fraternity, has been approaching for judicial review of the action of the High Court on one or the other ground but it appears that for one or the other reasons may be, for some fault on the part of the High Court to adjudicate the controversy, justice has not been done. In pursuance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court to decide the dispute within six months, the present Division Bench has been constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court to settle the law on the question involved in the writ petition.

2. It is the irony of fate that those, who impart justice to citizens or litigants, are not satisfied for one or the other reason resulting in multiplicity of litigation with regard to seniority and consequential benefits in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service (in short HJS).

3. The petitioners were selected for the post of Munsif Magistrate in accordance with Rules and joined on the said post on 29.8.1978. According to petitioners’ counsel, on 30.4.1987, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Civil and Assistant Sessions Judge. In the quota of promotees in HJS cadre, the petitioners became eligible for promotion against available vacancies in 1994. In accordance with Full Court Resolution of High Court as admitted by the respondent No. 2 in its affidavit dated 6.12.2007, the petitioners candidature was approved for promotion under Rule 20 of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (in short 1975 Rules). In pursuance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of 1975 Rules, the petitioners were promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15.6.1996. It shall be relevant to take note of the fact that Rule 22 was amended by 4th amendment on 15.3.1996. The promotional order dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), is of temporary nature. In pursuance of the order dated 5.12.1998, the petitioners were regularly promoted as Additional District Judge under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of 1975 Rules and they were placed in the seniority list dated 24.8.2007 at serial Nos. 334 and 347 respectively. The petitioners were given seniority from December, 1998 from the date of their regular promotion though, they were shown to have been promoted in June, 1996. It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that the original promotional order dated 27.5.1996 was passed in pursuance of Service Rule against the vacancies of 1992-94 within the quota of promotees. Submission is that the order dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) was passed in pursuance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 of the 1975 Rules as a measure of temporary arrangement but it was passed within the promotees quota. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion from the order dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) as under :

ÞmŸkj Áns'k ljdkj

fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&4

la0 1906@nks&4&96&32¼1½@96

y[kuÅ % fnukad 27 ebZ] 1996

foKfIr

fu;qfDr

Jh jkT;iky egksn;] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls] mŸkj Áns'k U;kf;d lsok esa dk;Zjr fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mŸkj Áns'k mPprj U;kf;d lsok fu;ekoyh] 1974 ds ;Fkk la'kksf/kr ¼prqFkZ la'kks/ku½ ds fu;e 22¼3½ ds vUrxZr mŸkj Áns'k mPprj U;kf;d lsok esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu;r muds dksVs ds Hkhrj fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) vYidkfyd O;oLFkk ¼dke pykÅ O;oLFkk½ esa ÁksUufr djrs gq, muds }kjk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls mudh fu;qfDr muds uke ds lEeq[k mfYyf[kr LFkku ij djrs gSaA

2- mfYyf[kr ÁksUufr;ka@fu;qfDr;ka ek0 mPpre U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh esa fopkjk/khu fo'ks"k vuqKk ;kfpdk la0 3580@1994&Jh ,l0 ds0 f=ikBh o vU; cuke m0Á0 ljdkj o vU; rFkk vU; vihyksa@fo'ks"k vuqKk ;kfpdkvksa@;kfpdkvksa ,oa Hkk0 mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu ;kfpdk la0 35384@1994&Jh mekdkUr 'kekZ o vU; cuke m0Á0 ljdkj o vU;] ,oa vU; ;kfpdkvksa@jsO;w fiVh'kuksa@vihyksa rFkk vU; ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa e