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 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. Introduction. 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 merit-cum-seniority 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 inter-play, which also had an eventful effect on the seniority list prepared as per Rule 26 of the UPHJS Rules, 1975 had been fascinated by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judicial precedent. Some of these judgements are being enumerated herein below, so that this Court, while dealing with the issues raised by the parties in the present writ petitions, is alive to these precedents, which holds the ground even as on today :- (i) Sri Kant Tripathi & Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2001) 10 SCC 237, Apparently, the root to the present controversy relating to determination of vacancies for each quota, stems from the year 2000, which came to be decided by the Apex Court in Sri Kant Tripathi & others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2001) 10 SCC 237, wherein certain directions for redetermination of vacancies was given by the Hon’ble Apex Court by interpreting the relevant provisions of the Rules and leaving the actual numbers to be determined by the High Court for different recruitment years starting from 1988 to 1998. The Apex court inter-alia in Sri Kant Tripathi’s case (supra) held: “(i) Appointments already made to the higher judicial service, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, need not be annulled and shall be continued. (ii) With effect from 1988 recruitment and in all subsequent recruitments which are the subject matter of challenge before us, the high court shall determine the number of vacancies available as on the relevant year of recruitment in terms of rule 8, as already explained by us and then, allocate the percentage to different sources of recruitment, contained in rule 6, and after such determination is made, then find out whether the appointments of direct recruits already made for that recruitment year are in excess of the quota or within the quota. If it is found that any appointment has been made in excess of the quota, then the said appointee would be allowed to continue, but his or her seniority will have to be reckoned only when he or she is adjusted in the next recruitment. (iii) If in each recruitment year, posts were available in the quota of promotees and promotion has not been made, even though selection had been made under rule 20, then the legitimate right of the promotees cannot be denied and promotion must be made with effect from the date they should have been appointed. (iv) This exercise has to be made for the recruitment of 1988 as well as for each subsequent recruitment that has been made. (v) Since the determination under rule 8 is being made now, pursuant to the directions of this court, in respect of past recruitment years for which recruitment has been made, the expression "vacancies likely to occur" loses its importance and determination has to be made, on the basis of the actual vacancies available in any of such recruitment year. In the meantime, the aforesaid judgment dated 25.08.2004 (supra), which had declared availability of 24 direct recruit vacancy and 331 promotions seats, was itself challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Pal Singh & others vs. U.P. Judicial Services & others : (2010) 12 SCC 635 and since there was no interim stay in the said case, the High Court in compliance of judgment dated 25.08.2004 (supra) (High Court order) proceeded to prepare a seniority list of pre-1998 appointees that came to be approved by the Full Court on 24.08.2007. The said seniority list was subjected to challenge in Prabhuji and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 SCC Online All 2410 and during pendency of the said petition, judgment in the case of Ashok Pal Singh’s case (supra) came to be delivered on 13.09.2010, wherein the Apex Court while considering the purport and intent of Rule 8 (2) of UPHJS Rules, 1975, it was held that the same was not to dilute or change the quota of direct recruits. It further held that its object was to ensure that no vacancy remained unfilled for want of adequate number of direct recruits under the prescribed quota. While holding so, the Apex Court noted that there were reasonable chances of adequate number of candidates being not available for direct recruitment whereas usually sufficient number of candidates would be available for promotion. It also made further clear that the proviso to Rule 8(2) of UPHJS Rules, 1975 ensures that the short fall in quota for direct recruits in any recruitment does not get permanently converted to promotee quota by providing that the short fall should be made at the next recruitment for the direct recruitees, subject to it does not exceeds the 25% of strength of the service. (11) In the interregnum, the UPHJS Rules, 1975 were amended in terms of paragraphs 27, 28 and 39 of the judgment in All India Judges' Association’s case (supra) vide notification dated 09.01.2007 by which UPHJS (Sixth Amendment) Rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPHJS Amended Rules, 2006’) came into force with retrospective effect from 21.03.2002 i.e. the date of the All India Judges' Association’s case (supra). However, only part compliance of the dictum was made, in as much no amendment in terms of paragraph 29 took place, which provided for seniority on the basis of quota and rotational basis.