AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) SINCE both the aforesaid writ petitions are connected and have been heard analogously, the same are being decided by this common judgement and order having binding effect upon both the writ petitions.
(2.) BOTH the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed on 03rd June, 2009 and 20th May, 2009 respectively almost making similar prayers. However, the prayers of both the writ petitions are chronologically set out hereunder: Prayers of C.M.W.P. No. 29450 of 2009: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) published by Registrar General, High Court at Allahabad. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to provide only 50% of reservation out of the total advertise vacancy including the carried forward vacancies after excluding the candidates who belong the creamy layer. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to exclude the candidates belonging to the creamy layer of the other backward classes and schedule caste and schedule tribe from the reserved category of the candidate. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to provide reservation to the persons belonging to economically weaker section of the society and provide reservation on the basis of economic weakerness of a person or candidate. v. Issue a writ, order or direction to treat the candidates satisfying the criteria mentioned in office memorandum dated 08.09.1993 as the criteria for determining creamy layer of candidates. vi. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold examination in Hindi subject for selecting the candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service in Pre and Main examination. vii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide question paper in Hindi as well as in English to the candidates for Pre and Main examination. viii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ix. Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner." Prayers of C.M.W.P. No. 26720 of 2009: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) published by Registrar General, High Court at Allahabad. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition) issued by the Joint Registrar (E)/Central Public Information Officer, High Court, Allahabad. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to provide only 50% of reservation out of the total advertise vacancy including the carried forward vacancies. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold examination in Hindi subject for selecting the candidates for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service in Pre and Main examination. v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide question paper in Hindi as well as in English to the candidates for Pre and Main examination. vi. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Rule 4, 5, 6 and 20 of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Right to Information Act, 2005) as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Right to Information Act, 2005. vii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. viii. Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner." In spite of making challenge in respect of holding examinations by the High Court for selecting candidates for Higher Judicial Service, the petitioners participated in the respective preliminary examination as general category candidates and became unsuccessful. This fact is very crucial for the purpose of determining the cause.
(3.) MR . Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, though sought for various reliefs but mainly confined to the issues, which are being discussed hereunder.;