By the Court.—We have heard Shri Yashwant Varma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 1753 of 2012. Shri D.P. Singh, Senior Counsel appears for the respondents. In Special Appeal No. 1047 of 2012 Shri Shailendra appears for the appellants (selected candidates). In Special Appeal No. 1809 of 2012 Shri Vivek Saran and in Special Appeal (D) No. 929 of 2012 Shri Ripu Daman Singh appears for the appellants.

2. The Special Appeal No. 1753 of 2012, filed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General and another and those by the selected/non-selected candidates, arise out of the judgment and order dated 27.8.2012 passed by learned Singh Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1922 of 2012 (Ashish Singh v. The High Court of judicature at Allahabad and others) and other connected writ petitions, by which he has allowed the writ petitions and set aside the selections held for the post of Assistant Review Officer (ARO) in the establishment of the High Court, from the stage of evaluation of the type sheets of computer proficiency test, with liberty to the Committee of Hon’ble Judges appointed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, which supervised the examinations to either follow the norms of the last selections or lay down the norms for fresh evaluation of the typed sheets taking into consideration as to how with the increase of mistakes, there shall be gradual increase in the deduction of marks, and the words ‘not typed’ shall be taken as mistake.

3. Learned Single Judge has in his impugned judgment dated 27.8.2012 also held that confining of the selected reserved category candidates in their respective categories is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has held that the Full Court’s resolution on the question of applicability of the rules of reservation cannot hold the field in the facts of the case and has directed, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the select panel to be prepared after fresh evaluation ensuring that the candidates belonging to reserved categories be adjusted against the posts meant for open category (wrongly mentioned as general category), if they have secured more marks in aggregate than the last selected candidate within the general category. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within one month. The select list dated 27.5.2011 was consequently quashed.

4. Brief facts giving rise to these Special Appeals are that an advertisement was published by the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (in short the High Court) on 29.7.2009 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Review Officers to be appointed in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad and at Lucknow Bench. The advertisement set out that the recruitment process was to fill up 465 posts, which comprise of existing and consequential vacancies likely to arise upto June, 2009. Apart from these, three backlog vacancies falling in Scheduled Tribe category were also to be included in the selections and thus the recruitment exercise was to be undertaken for a total of 468 vacancies with a break up for categories : (A) General-232; (B) OBC-126; (C) SC-98 and (D) ST-12 (total 468). The advertisement laid down the essential qualification as required for the ARO’s and provided in Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (in short the Rules of 1976). Rule 8 (b) in Part-IV of the Rules of 1976 provide for sources and method of recruitment to Class-III employees. The post of Assistant Review Officer is required to be filled up 50 % by direct recruitment through competitive examination or selections and 50% by promotion from amongst permanent Routine Grade Clerks, permanent Telephone Operators and permanent Telex Operators. The qualification for AROs in Rule 9 (ii) is a Bachelor’s degree of a University established by law in India or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto. The pro