IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.12.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Writ Petition Nos.14499, 9520, 9844, 13526, 14598 and 17665 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.14499 and 14598 of 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.17665 of 2009 J.K.Shivaganesh ... Petitioner in W.P.No.14499 of 2009 J.Siva Ganesh ... petitioner in W.P.No.9520/2009 P.Gopi Raja ... petitioner in W.P.No.9844/2009, W.P.No.13526/2009 P.Murugan ... petitioner in W.P.No.14598/2009 & W.P.No.17665/2009 Vs. 1. Union of India, Rep. by Lt. Governor, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 2. Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 3. The Law Secretary, Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry. 4. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai-600 104. 5. Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy 6. Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar 7. The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The Chief Judge, Puducherry. 9. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and Company Affairs, Parliament House, New Delhi. .. Respondents in W.P.No.14499 of 2009 1. The Union of India, Rep by its Lt.Governor, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 2. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. 3. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, pondicherry. 4. The Law Secretary, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 5. S.Uthirapathi, Member Secretary, Pondicherry Legal Services Authority. Respondents in W.P.No.9520/2009 1. The Union of India, Rep by its Lt.Governor, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 2. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, pondicherry. 3. The Law Secretary, Union Territory of Pondicherry, Pondicherry. 4. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. 5. S.Uthirapathi, Member Secretary, Pondicherry Legal Services Authority. Respondents in W.P.No.9844/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The Union of India, Rep by its Lt.Governor, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 2. The Union Territory of Puducherry Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry. 3. The Law Secretary, Union Territory of Puducherry, 4. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai-600 104. 5. Tmt.C.Roubavady, Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore. 6. Tmt.R.Margaret Rosaline, Sub Judge, Nagapattinam Respondents in W.P.No.13526/2009 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Secretary to the Government, Law Department, State of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras Chennai-600 104. 4. The Secretary to the Government, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. Respondents in W.P.No.14598/2009 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Secretary to The Government, Law Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 4. The Secretary to the Government, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 5. Mr.K.Asokan, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore. 6. Mr.S.Sathapillai, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi. 7. Mr.S.Panneerselvam, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Vellore. 8. Mr.T.C.S.Rajachockalingam Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvalur. 9. Mr.P.Boopalan, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri. 10. Mr.J.Jayaram, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore. 11. Mr.R.Paranjothi, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai. 12. Mr.M.A.Aanandhakkumaar, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai. 13. Mr.R.Kamath, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli 14. Ms.S.Malathi, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15. Mr.P.Ayyaswami Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukottai. 16. Mr.C.Doraiswamy, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram. 17. Mr.A.Krishnan Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Ponneri. 18. Mr.S.Karpoorasundaram Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal. 19. Mr.I.Pandurangan Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Periyakulam 20. Mr.M.P.Jaganathan Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Gopichettipalayam 21. Mr.S.Ethiraj, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tirupathur. 22. Mr.V.Thangaraj, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Dharapuram 23. Mr.S.Pandian, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore. 24. Mr.S.Somasekaran, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Kancheepuram Respondents in W.P.No.17665/2009 Writ Petition No.14499 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto, under what authority that the respondents 5 and 6 are holding the post of ad-hoc District Judges after expiry of mandatory period of one year tenure of ad-hoc appointment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.9520 of 2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to make appointment to the post of District Judges in the Union Territory of Puducherry strictly in accordance with the puducherry Judicial service (Cadre & Recruitment) Rules 2008 published in G.O.Ms.No.8/08- LD-dated 8.4.2008 by the Law Department Puducherry. W.P.No.9844/2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to make appointments as per the amended Rules in terms of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and recruit deserving candidates from the Bar for the post of District Judges. W.P.No.13526 of 2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certriorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction in the nature of a writ,to call for the records pertaining to G.O.No.1611/2009 LD dated 1.6.2009 issued by the Law Department, Government of Puducherry i.e. third respondent, promoting Respondents five and six Civil Judges (Senior Division) on temporary and ad-hoc basis as District Judges (Entry Level) and to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint persons on the amended rules by recruiting the persons from the bar and on limited competitive examination for the permanent cadre vacancy of District Judges (Entry Level) as per the amended Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2008, dated 8.4.2008. W.P.No.14598/2009:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a writ,directing the respondents to make appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) and to recruit deserving candidates from the Bar for filling up of remaining about 25 posts in 25 percent quota to the bar members as per amended rules of the Tamilnadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2007 which was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette in G.O.Ms. No.79 Home (Cts.IA) Department dated 19.1.2007. W.P.No.17665 of 2009:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certriorarified Mandamus or any other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appropriate Writ Order or Direction in the nature of a writ, to call for the records pertaining to G.O.(D) No.128 dated 29.7.2009 issued by first respondent promoting Respondents 5 to 24 as District Judges (Entry Level) on ad hoc basis and to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint persons from the bar as District Judges (Entry Level) in the remaining unfilled posts of bar quota i.e. 25 percent as per the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2007. Mr.M.Gunasekar : Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.No.14499; 9520, 14598 and 17665/2009. M/s.Chitra Sampath for N.Baskar- Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.NO.9844 and 13526/2009 --- Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, AGP (Pondy) For R1 to R3 Mr.M.V.Selvaraj, Advocate For R5 and R6, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Advocate For R-4 in W.P.14499/2009 Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy -Senior Advocate For Mr.N.V.V.Krishnaa - For R5 and R2, Mr.T.Murugesan, Spl GP (Pondy) For-R1, R3 & R4 in W.P.No.9520 & 9844/09 Mr.R.Syed Mustafa- AGP For R2; R3 Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy- Senior Advocate- For R-4 in W.P.13526/2009 Mr.D.Sreenivasan, AGP For-R1, R2; & R-4 Mr.A.Jeenasenan, For -R3 in W.P.14598/2009 Mr.D.Sreenivasan, AGP- For R1, R2, R4 Mr.A.Jeenasenan- For R-3 Mr.N.Jothi, For Mr.N.Senthilnathan For R1 Mr.P.Jayakumar, For R-12 Mr.K.S.Gajendrababu, For R-14 Mr.K.P.Padmanabhan, For R-15 and M/s.P.Raja Rajeswari -For R-19 Mr.P.Nethaji-For R-13 in W.P.17665/2009. COMMON ORDER S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J All the Writ Petitions relate to appointment in the judicial service. In some of the cases, while prayer has been made to direct the respondents to fill up the posts by direct recruitment, in the other cases, prayer has been made to quash certain appointments. All the Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.Nos.14499, 9844, 9520 and 13526 of 2009 relate to appointment to the post of District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service. W.P.Nos.14598 and 17665 of 2009 relate to appointment to the post of District Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. 2. In W.P.No.14499 of 2009, the petitioner, a practising lawyer, has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto, challenging the authority of the fifth respondent-Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy and the sixth respondent-Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar, to hold the post of District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service on ad-hoc basis, after expiry of the mandatory period of one year. 3. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.9844 and 9520 of 2009 prayed to make appointment to Puducherry Judicial Service in terms of the amended Rules. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.13526 of 2009 has challenged the order dated 1.6.2009 issued by the Law Department of the Government of Puducherry, whereby the fifth respondent-C.Roubavady and the sixth respondent-R.Margaret Roasaline have been promoted on temporary and ad-hoc basis as District Judge (Entry Level) in Puducherry Judicial Service. 5. The petitioner-P.Murugan in W.P.No.14598 of 2009 has prayed for a direction to the respondents to make appointment to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) by direct recruitment from eligible candidates from the Bar against 25% quota in terms of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, published in the Gazette on 19.1.2007. 6. In W.P.No.17665 of 2009, the very same petitioner P.Murugan has challenged the appointment of respondents 5 to 24 therein, made by G.O.(D).No.128, dated 29.7.2009, whereby those officers have been appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. 7. In all the cases, the general allegation made is that the respondents-authorities are not making the appointments in terms of the relevant Rules framed by the respective States, namely Union Territory of Puducherry and the State of Tamil Nadu and are being made in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "All India Judges' Assn. Vs. Union of India" reported in 2002 (4) SCC 247. In the said case, the Supreme Court of India made a dictum for appointment of District Judges as 50% by promotion from amongst Civil Judges (Senior Division), 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited Competitive Examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) and 25% of the post by direct recruitment from the Bar members. 8. It is also alleged that the respondents-authorities all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time are making ad-hoc appointments, both in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service and the Union Territory of Puducherry, without resorting to regular appointment in terms of the Rules and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. 9. It is argued in common that the petitioners who are Advocates, are eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge and they are aspiring for such post, but the same is being deprived by appointment of the District Judge on ad-hoc basis for years together, which is arbitrary and against law. 10. To decide the question as to whether the (ad-hoc) appointments of the concerned respondents in the Writ Petitions were made in accordance with law and to find out as to against which quota they were appointed, i.e. against 50% quota of promotees or against 25% quota of Civil Judges (Senior Division) selected pursuant to a limited Competitive Examination or against 25% quota of direct recruitment, this Court called for the original records of those who were appointed in the recent past. In the Union Territory of Puducherry or the State of Tami Nadu, particularly, with respect to those who have been impleaded as party- respondents in different Writ Petitions, records have been produced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court, Madras. The Rules have also been placed. 11. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court, Madras, as also the learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Puducherry and the State of Tamil Nadu, while supporting the appointments of the respective respondents in the Writ Petitions, submitted that in some of the cases, ad-hoc appointments have been made because of pendency of one or other case, which has already been disposed of. In fact, in all the cases, procedures for regular appointment/promotion have been followed, but in the orders of appointment, it has been shown as "ad- hoc", as the Writ Petitions were pending at one or other stage against such appointment/promotion. It is further submitted that some ad-hoc arrangement has been made by promoting Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of District Judge on ad-hoc basis, in view of the administrative exigency, as no Court can be kept vacant for years together. It is also pointed out that steps have been taken to fill up the vacant post of District Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service in accordance with the Rules. 12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 13. Pondicherry Judicial Service: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It appears that the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 came into force only on 8.4.2008, whereby, for the first time, the quota for promotees were reduced to 50% and new quota for the Civil Judges (Senior Division) by selection/Special Examination has been carved out. The direct recruits have been provided with 25% of the quota of the cadre post. Prior to the said Rules, 2008, 75% of the post used to be filled up by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. The cadre strength of the District Judges in the Puducherry Judicial Service and Ex-cadre post, is as follows: (i)Cadre Strength of District Judges : 4 posts (a) As per Old Rules : (i) By promotion : 3 posts (ii)By direct recruitment : 1 post (b) As per New Rules: (i) By promotion : 2 posts (ii)By direct recruitment : 1 post (iii)By selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division) : 1 post (ii) By Ex-cadre strength : 2 posts Post of Member Secretary in the Union Territory of Puducherry Legal Services Authority and the post of Judge, Family Court. These posts can be occupied on deputation by any person and no quota can be claimed by direct recruits or Civil Judges (Senior Division) by selection. It appears that already, the following six persons have been appointed/promoted and working as District Judges in the Puducherry Judicial Service: (i) District Judge against direct recruitment quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.N o. Name of the Officer Date of appoint- ment Nature of appointment as shown in the letter of appointment Nature of appoint- ment as shown in the selection and recommen- dation of the High Court 1 Mr.K.Uthira pathy (Fifth Respondent in W.P.Nos.9520 & 9844 of 2009) 25.3.2002 Temporary, ad-hoc basis Regular/ substan- tive appoint- ment (ii) District Judge against promotion quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: Sl. No. Name of the Officer Date of appoint- ment Nature of appointment as shown in the letter of appointment Nature of appoint- ment as shown in the selection and recommen- dation of the High Court 1 Mr.D.Ramabathiran 1.8.2005 Temporary, ad-hoc basis Regular/ substan- tive appoint- ment 2 Mr.K.Dakshina moorthy (Fifth Respondent in W.P.No.14499 of 2009) 11.1.2008 Temporary, ad-hoc basis Regular/ substan- tive appoint- ment 3 Mr.E.M.K.Siddharth ar (Sixth respondent in W.P.No.14499 of 2009) 11.1.2008 Temporary, ad-hoc basis Regular/ substan- tive appoint- ment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)District Judge appointed by promotion in view of additional strength of Ex-cadre post: Sl. No. Name of the Officer Date of appoint- ment Nature of appoint-ment as shown in the letter of appointment Nature of appoint- ment as shown in the selection and recommen- dation of the High Court 1 Smt.C.Roubavady (fifth respondent in W.P.No.13526 of 2009) 4.9.2009 ad-hoc basis ad-hoc basis 2 Smt.R.Margaret Rosaline (Sixth Respondent in W.P.No.13526 of 2009) 1.10.2009 ad-hoc basis ad-hoc basis Mr.Uthirapathy: District Judge by direct recruitment: The High Court, by Notification No.86/2001, dated 8.8.2001, invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up one post of District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service by direct recruitment, from the Bar. Pursuant to the said Notification, number of candidates applied and the Selection Committee of the High Court, interviewed the eligible candidates and after assessing the merits, the name of K.Uthirapathy was recommended for regular appointment as District Judge by direct recruitment in the Puducherry Judicial Service, by D.O.Lr.No.79/1999, dated 21.12.2001. The Original Application of K.Uthirapathy was also forwarded and the Union Territory of Puducherry was requested to appoint Mr.K.Uthirapathy as District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service, by direct recruitment. However, for the reasons best known to the Union Territory of Puducherry, while the Office Order was issued from the Law Department of the Government of Puducherry, vide No.48-12/2001-LD (PJS), dated 15.3.2002, the following nature of appointment was shown: "Thiru.K.Uthirapathy, Advocate is hereby appointed as District Judge on purely temporary and adhoc basis in the Pondicherry Judicial Service with effect from the date of his assumption of charge as District Judge. 2. He will draw pay in the scale of pay of Rs.16400- 450-20000, plus other allowances as admissible under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rules in force." Learned counsel for the respondent-Union Territory of Puducherry submitted that at the time of appointment of Mr.K.Uthirapathy, one Sugumaran, son of Govindaraju, Co-ordinator, Federation for People's Rights, Puducherry, made certain allegations and the matter was referred to the Registrar General of the High Court, on 21.2.2002, and as a fact finding enquiry was under consideration, in the order of appointment, the nature of appointment of the said K.Uthirapathy was shown as temporary and ad-hoc basis. However, it is accepted that on the said complaint, after enquiry, finally, nothing was found against K.Uthirapathy and he is still continuing in the service. Pursuant to the order of appointment, K.Uthirapathy joined the post in March 2002 and still continuing in the Puducherry Judicial Service for more than 7-1/2 years. In view of the aforesaid facts, as Mr.K.Uthirapathy was appointed after following all the procedures, i.e. calling for applications from the eligible candidates, interview and selection, and on the recommendation of the High Court, as a direct recruit, and is continuing for more than 7-1/2 years, we hold that Mr.K.Uthirapathy was entitled for regular and substantive appointment. Mr.D.Ramabathiran: District Judge appointed by promotion against the promotee quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: From the records, it appears that the case of Mr.D.Ramabathiran was considered for regular promotion to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Puducherry Judicial Service. The matter was considered by the Administrative Committee, which on consideration of the record of service, recommended him for regular promotion. Thereafter, the Registrar General, by D.O.Lr.No.71/2004-Con.B2, dated 24.11.2004, requested the Union Territory of Puducherry to promote Mr.D.Ramabathiran, Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Puducherry Judicial Service on regular basis, as evident from the said letter and quoted hereunder: "I am to state that High Court considered the cases of Civil Judges (Senior Division) of Pondicherry Judicial Service for promotion to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) and ordered to promote Thiru.D.Ramabathiran, Senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division), now functioning on deputation as Director of Prosecution, Pondicherry to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Pondicherry Judicial Service. I am, therefore, to request that necessary orders of the appointing authority promoting Thiru.D.Ramabathiran, Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Pondicherry Judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Service now functioning on deputation as Director of Prosecution, Pondicherry as District Judge (Entry Level) in the said service may be obtained and communicated urgently." However, from the Office Order of promotion, issued by the Government of Puducherry, Law Department, vide No.3203/2004-LD(PJS), dated 6.12.2004, it is evident that the Government of Puducherry issued the order of promotion in respect of Mr.D.Ramabathiran, as District Judge, purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis, for the reasons best known to it. Since 6.12.2004, the Officer is continuing in the service. From the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that the case of Mr.D.Ramabathiran was considered for promotion on regular basis and he is continuing for long period and was in fact, entitled for regular promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on substantive basis. Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy and Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar: District Judges appointed by promotion against the quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: From the records, it appears that the cases of Smt.C.Roubavady, Smt.R.Margaret Rosaline, P.Nallathambi, K.Dakshinamoorthy, Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar and Mr.K.Arul, were considered by the Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 9.10.2007, for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Puducherry Judicial Service. The Selection Committee, on consideration of the merit-cum- seniority, suitability, service records and other records, made the following recommendation in the order of merit/preference: (i) Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy (ii) Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar (iii)Smt.C.Roubavady (iv) Smt.R.Margaret Rosaline (v) Mr.P.Nallathambi (vi) Mr.K.Arul The aforesaid recommendation having been accepted by the Administrative Side of this Court, their names were forwarded to the Government of Puducherry, which issued Office Order in No.48- 12/PSJ/2007-LD, 22.11.2007, promoting Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy and Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar, as District Judges (Entry Level), but curiously, such order of promotion has been issued purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis and in the said order dated 22.11.2007, it has also been mentioned that such temporary ad-hoc promotion has been given in view of the pendency of the cases in W.P.Nos.33524 and 35164 of 2007, in which their appointments were also questioned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ From the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy and Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar were recommended for promotion on regular basis against promotee quota of the Puducherry Judicial Service, but in view of the pendency of the cases, the nature of promotion has been shown as temporary and ad-hoc basis. The aforesaid Writ Petition No.33524 of 2007 (M.Senthil Kumar Vs. Union of India, rep. by Lt. Governor, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry) and Writ Petition No.35164 of 2007 (J.Sivaganesh Vs. Union of India, rep. by Lt. Governor, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry), were filed to appoint the District Judges in terms of the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules and as per the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of "All India Judges' Assn. Vs. Union of India" reported in 2002 (4) SCC 247. In the said W.P.No.35164 of 2007, Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy, Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar, Smt.C.Roubavady, Smt.R.Margaret Rosaline and Mr.K.Arul were impleaded as respondents 5 to 9 respectively. One or other interim order was passed in those Writ Petitions from time to time. Both the said Writ Petitions were finally heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, by a common order, dated 4.2.2008. Having noticed all the facts and the submissions which were made similar to the present Writ Petitions, the Division Bench made the following observations: "23. While considering the question of stay, we had modified the interim order of stay and had permitted Respondents 5 & 6 to join the post without prejudice to the contentions raised in the writ petitions. We find that as per the direction of the Supreme Court, upto three persons can be promoted through the conventional method of promotion, namely the merit-cum-seniority and only one such person has been promoted earlier. Accordingly, even if the rules are modified, obviously there is scope for promoting two more on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Accordingly, the Respondents 5 & 6 are allowed to continue. This, however, is without prejudice to the contentions, if any, to be raised by any of the other respondents relating to process of the selection itself. In other words, if any of the Sub Judge has any grievance that he should have been selected ahead of the Respondents 5 & 6, it would be open to such Sub Judge to raise such question before the appropriate forum and such question is not decided by us." In view of the aforesaid order dated 4.2.2008 passed in W.P.Nos.33524 and 35164 of 2007, the Court having permitted Mr.K.Dakshinamoorthy and Mr.E.M.K.Siddharthar, the respondents 5 and 6 respectively in W.P.No.35164 of 2007, to continue and their selection having been made on regular basis for promotion to the post of District