Allahabad High Court Harendra Bahadur Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 23 February, 2024 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHCLKO:16580DB RESERVED Court No. 1 (1) Case : WRIT A No. 30173 of 2019 Petitioner : Harendra Bahadur Singh And Ors. Respondent : State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Appointment And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner : Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Amardeep Yadav Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Dharmendra Kumar Dixit,Gaurav Mehrotra, Praneet Kumar Agarwal, Shireesh Kumar, Sridhar Awasthi connected with (2) Case : WRIT A No. 2000845 of 2014 Petitioner : Sanjeev Kumar Singh And11 Others Respondent : State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Appointement Govt. Of U.P.Andan Counsel for Petitioner : Sandeep Dixit,Vaibhav Singh,Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Manish Kumar, U N Mishra, Upendra Nath Mishra with (3) Case : WRIT A No. 11453 of 2020 Petitioner : Smt. Manorama And Ors. Respondent : Hon.High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Throu. R.G. and Ors. Counsel for Petitioner : Kshitij Mishra, Ramendra Kumar Yadav, Sanjeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Anurag.S. Kaalesh, Aseem Chandra, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Gaurav Mehrotra, Jitendra Saksena,Nilaya Gupta, Shireesh Kumar,Sridhar Awasthi,Vivek Kumar Singh with (4) Case : WRIT A No. 28511 of 2021 Petitioner : Randheer Singh And Ors. Respondent : Hon'ble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru.R.G.Andors. Counsel for Petitioner : Shobhit Mohan Shukla Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C., Anil Kumar Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Gaurav Mehrotra, Nilaya Gupta, P.R.S. Bajpai, Sameer Singh, Sridhar Awasthi Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J. (Per Om Prakash Shukla, J.) INDEX OF JUDGMENT Sl. No. Contents Page Nos. A. Introduction 37 B. Background 720 C. Relevant Rules applicable to the present issue 2025 D. The Dispute 2527 E. Disposal of WritA No. 2000845 of 2014 2749 F. Contention of the parties in WritA No. 30173 of 2019, WritA No.11453 of 2020 and WritA No. 28511 of 2021 4963 G. Discussion & Findings 63113 H. Conclusion 110113 (1) Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, Shri Sudeep Seth, Shri J.N. Mathur, Shri Sanjay Bhasin, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Shri Kshitij Mishra, Shri Shobit Mohan Shukla, Shri Amardeep Yadav, representing the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State/rspondent, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel representing the High Court/respondent and Shri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Shri Shireesh Kumar, Shri Praneet Kumar Agarwal, Shri Sridhar Awasthi, Shri Sanjay Hari Shukla, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Gautam, Shri Vivek Tripathi, Shri Jitendra Saksena, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the private respondents. A. Introduction (2) The perennial problem of determination of number of vacancy to be filled from each source of recruitment and its consequential effect on the seniority list has yet again come to haunt the recruitment year 2012 and 2014 for the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. Although by now these problems ought to have been resolved by the authoritative decision of the Apex Court, however these issues refuses to die down and have a salutary burial. (3) The Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as "UPHJS Rules, 1975") have been framed to regulate the recruitment, appointment and other conditions of services for Higher Judicial Services appointees in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 5 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 provides for three source of recruitment; the first being (a) by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of meritcumseniority and passing a suitability test; the second being (b) by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service; and the third being ( c) by direct recruitment from amongst the learned Advocates of not less than seven years standing on the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. The conundrum relating to the number of available seats for each source of recruitment in view of the quota prescribed under Rule 6 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 and number of appointment to be made as per Rule 8 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 and the effect of reservation for posts of schedules castes etc. as per Rule 7 of the UPHJS Rules, 1975 and their interplay, which also had an eventful effect on the seniority list prepared as per Rule 26 of t