Vivek Singh Thakur, J

These petitions, for adjudication of common questions of law and similar facts, in the similar circumstances, are being decided by this common judgment.

These petitions have been filed seeking direction to amend Clause 6(i) of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Promotion from amongst Civil Judges, (Sr. Division) to the posts of District/Additional District Judges on the basis of limited Competitive Examination) Regulations, 2005, for reducing the qualifying criteria in the written examination from minimum of 60% in each individual paper and minimum aggregate of 66% marks in all papers, for becoming eligible for accelerated promotion/appointment to the post of Additional District Judge through the mode of limited competitive examination; and instead to provide minimum of 50% in each individual paper and minimum aggregate of 55% marks in all papers put together on the ground that criteria provided for direct recruitment to the same post i.e. Additional District Judge for becoming eligible to be called for interview is minimum 50% in each individual paper and minimum aggregate of 55% marks in all papers put together, alleging that provision providing such different criteria for recruitment through two different modes i.e. direct recruitment and limited competitive examination, is irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and, thus, violative of Constitutional mandate.

Vide pronouncement in All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002)4 SCC 247 the Supreme Court had directed as under:-

“27. Another question which falls for consideration is the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for recruitment to Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The Subordinate Judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the Judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the Judicial system essentially rests on the Subordinate Judiciary. While we have accepted the recommendation of the Shetty

Commission which will result in the increase in the pay scale of the Subordinate Judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the Judicial officers, hard-working as they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a Judicial Academy which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standards, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge Cadre from amongst the advocate should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both written and viva voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an objective method of testing the suitability of the Subordinate Judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however, of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned: 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judic