D. Raju, J. - (1.) The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of Certiorari quash the order bearing No. 283 dated 4.7.2002 an order Nos. 142-143 dated 27.4.2002 and also quash the grant of selection grade and super-time scale the third respondent herein, including the recommendations said have been made for consideration of the name of R-3 for further elevation. In addition there, relief of Certiorari was sought even quash the grant of selection grade respondents 4 8 on the ground that the criteria on which it was accorded them was wholly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As a consequence the above, relief in the nature of Mandamus was also sought direct the second respondent grant selection grade the petitioners 1 3 with effect from 28.6.2001 and further grant the petitioners 1 of 3 super-time scale with effect from 27.4.2002, the date on which it was said have been given R-3, in addition seeking for such relief for Mandamus give selection grade petitioners 4 and 5 with effect from 27.4.2002, the date from which it was given respondents 4 8, with all consequential benefits including the seniority and arrears pay. Certain other reliefs, a detailed reference which is wholly unnecessary, have also been claimed.
(2.) The petitioners and respondents 3 and 7 were said have been selected as Munsiffs after passing the Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examination on 28.8.1974 and respondents 4 6 and 8 were selected for appointment during the period between 1978 and 1982. The first petitioner was said have been promoted on 30.8.1995, whereas petitioners 2 4 and respondent 3 promoted as District & Sessions Judges in November 1995. Petitioners 1 4 and respondent 3 were confirmed as District & Sessions Judges on 22.1.1998 with effect from 1997 while the other private parties-respondents are said be continued as temporary/officiating District & Sessions Judges. In the Gradation List published by the High Court on 1.1.2001, petitioners 1 4 were said have been shown at Serial Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19, whereas respondents 3 8 were shown at Serial Nos. 18, 31, 32, 36, 23 and 37 respectively. On 4.7.2001, the third respondent was placed in the selection grade w.e.f. 28.6.2001, according the writ petitioners over the head of six District Judges senior him. The grievance of the petitioners, among other things, is that the third respondent had never worked as District and Sessions Judge for any period and he was not even entitled be considered for according such selection grade. On coming know of the same, the petitioners 1 and 3 sought for copies of the proceedings and as soon as they were given in September 2001, the petitioners 1 3 also seem have made Representations/Review Petitions against the order No. 283 dated 4.7.2001. The second petitioner was said have been granted selection grade by order No. 810 dated 24.12.2001 w.e.f. 22.12.2001 without resring his original seniority, while at the same time bypassing the claims of petitioner No. 1. On 16.4.2002, the petitioners 1 and 2 seem have made representations the President of India.
(3.) It may be stated at this stage that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held a Full Court Meeting on 27.4.2002 consider the issue relating the grant of super-time scale/selection grade in Higher Judicial Services and the Full Court formulated the criteria/guidelines for grant of super-time scale and selection grade for members of the Higher Judicial Services. The said guidelines were also impugned as being irrational and inconsistent with what is known as recommendations of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commission accepted, subject certain modifications, by this Court in the decision reported in All India Judges Association v. Union of India . On the same day by yet another proceedings on 27.4.2002 in order No. 142, the third respondent was placed in the super-time scale applying the norms formulated by the High Court, which are also the subject matter of challenge in these proceedings. The third respondent was said have been given the super-time scale superseding eight District Judges senior him. A grievance is also made the respondents 4 6 and 8 were not even confirmed District & Sessions Judges putting hardly three years of service and as such they were not eligible for consideration for the grant of selection grade. The said orders are also challenged as being in violation of the Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commissions report. The further grievance of the writ petitioners is that the High Court did not consider the representations made by petitioners 1 3 against the grant of selection grade the third respondent by giving detailed reasons and instead rejected the same by disposing it in the light of the decision taken by the Full Court accord super-time scale the third respondent rendering thereby the representations made infructuous.;