S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.:- In this writ petition, petitioner No. 1 is the Tripura Bar Association and petitioner No. 2 was a member of the said Association at the material time. On behalf of the petitioners fallowing submissions are made (a) That although as per provisions of Rule 6 (3)(b) of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules') it is mandatory that 25% appointment to the posts in Grade-I other than the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary, Law Department and the Registrar, High Court, shall be made by direct recruitment from amongst the members of the Bar, there has all along been under employment to the post of Grade-I of the Service by direct recruitment in viola­tion of the quota rule. (b) Rule 3 of the Tripura Judicial Service (Determination of Seniority)Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Seniority Bules') which has come into force with effect from first day of January, 1975 providing that the inter se seniority of all the members of Grade-I of the service, whether direct recruits or promotees, shall be determined with reference to the date of their appointment in the Grade, is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and also inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules. 2. Petitioners' case is that although the Service Rule was fra­med in the year 1974, no direct recruitment in the Grade-I service was made for years together and all the posts were filled up by promotees. Appointment was made in the service from the Bar for the first time in the year 1981 end Sri S. Deb, an Advocate was appointed. But before completion of probationary period of two years, Sri Deb resigned and respondent No. 12 Sri D. Purakayastha was appointed as a direct recruit from the Bar in the Grade-I service in January, 1983. 3. Government of Tripura by Notification issued under letter No. F.9(28)-J/79 dated 3.11.1980 with the prior permission of the Finance Department, created two temporary posts of District Judge. 3. Government of Tripura by Notification issued under letter No. F.9(28)-J/79 dated 3.11.1980 with the prior permission of the Finance Department, created two temporary posts of District Judge. Thereafter by Notification No. F.1(4)-J (J)/81 dated 2nd February, 1981 (Annexure-2 to the petition) Governor of Tripura in the exer­cise of power under Rule 16 of the Tripura (Court) Order, 1950, in supersession of all other Notifications issued on that behalf ordered that on and from 10th February, 1981, the Tripura Civil District Judgeship shall be divided into following Civil Districts for the pur­pose of Chapter-III of the said order; (i) Court of District Judge, West Tripura. (ii) Court of District Judge, South Tripura. (iii) Court of District Judge, North Tripura. The petitioners' case is that prior to issue of Notification dated 3rd November, 1980, there was only one District Judge in the whole State of Tripura. After the creation of two temporary posts, Sri B. K. Bhattacharjee, Additional District & Sessions Judge was appointed as District & Sessions Judge by Notification dated 6th December, 1980 and respondent No. 4 was promoted from Grade-II service to Grade-I service temporarily as District & Sessions Judge, by Notifi­cation No. F. 5(6)-J/79 dated 1.1.81 In the resultant vacant post of Grade-I, following the appointment of Sri B. K. Bhattacharjee against the temporary post of District & Sessions Judge, respondent No. 5 was promoted temporarily from Grade-II service to Grade-I in the cadre of Additional District & Sessions Judge. 4, Thereafter, by Government Notification No. F. 9(28)-J/79 dated 22.10.81, three temporary posts of Additional District Judge in the Grade-1 service of Tripura Judicial Service were created. In these three posts respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 were temporarily promoted from Grade-II cadre. Aforesaid 5 (five) temporary posts were extended from year to year by the Government. By Notification dated 10th July, 1985 Sri B. K. Bhattacharjee and respondent No. 4 were confirmed in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service. Petitioners' contention is that with the creation of two posts of District Judge and three posts of Additional District Judge, 5(five) posts have been added to the strength of Grade I of the service after 22.10.81 and consequently at least one post out of the additional five posts ought to have been filled up by direct recruit from the Bar. However, the provision of Rule 6(3)(b) has been ignored. Mr. However, the provision of Rule 6(3)(b) has been ignored. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that although these five posts in the Grade I were created temporarily but the posts continued for years together and be deemed to be included in the Grade-I cadre of the service. In support of his contention Mr. Deb has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha vs. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court & others reported in (1988) 1 GLR 6. In the said case by judgment dated 1.9.87, a Division Bench of this Court decided that these five posts, although temporary, were not ex cadre posts but were of Grade I cadre of the Tripura Judicial Service. Mr. Deb also has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. B Patwardhan vs. State of Maha­rashtra reported in AIR 1977 SC 2051 wherein the Apex Court held that a cadre may consist of both permanent and temporary posts. 5. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) S. G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India ( AIR 1967 SC 1427 ) (2) F. B. Badami vs. State of Mysore, ( AIR 1980 SC 1561 ) and (3) Sonal Sihimappa vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1987 SC 2359 ), Mr. Deb has submitted that the Apex Court consi­stently held in clear language that when there are two sources of recruitment to a service by fixed quota, quota rule has to be foll­owed and there should not be any deviation in following the quota rule. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petiti­oners that Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that if the promotees occupy any vacancies which are within the quota of dir­ect recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the direct recru­its will occupy the vacancies within their quota and the promotees who are occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct recru­its will either be reverted or they will be absorbed in the vacanci­es within their quota. So also when the direct recruit is appointed in the vacancy which are within the quota of promotees, after the recruitment by promotion takes place, the promotees will occupy those vacant posts within their quota. Mr. So also when the direct recruit is appointed in the vacancy which are within the quota of promotees, after the recruitment by promotion takes place, the promotees will occupy those vacant posts within their quota. Mr. Deb has drawn our attention to the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dir­ect Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1990) SCC (2) 715 ( AIR 1990 SC 1607 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "(I) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the diff­erent sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. (II). If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota had broken down. (III). Where the quota rule has broken down and the app­ointments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source in­ducted in the service at a later date.” 6. It is submitted by Mr. Deb that the quota rule in the Tripura Judicial Service has neither been broken down nor it has be­come impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule. This submi­ssion on behalf of the petitioner has not been controverted by the learned Advocate General, Tripura Mr. Deb has submitted that by third Amendment of the Service Rule, 4 posts in the Grade-1 cadre of the Service have been added with affect from 23.12.86 and that in the meantime posts of legal Remembarancer and Secretary, Law Department and the post of Registrar, High Court, Agartala Bench, have been filled up by appointing members of Grade-1 of the ser­vice. Besides, 4 members of Grade-1 Service, are appointed on dep­utation in different Government departments. Besides, 4 members of Grade-1 Service, are appointed on dep­utation in different Government departments. As a result 19 posts in the cadre of Grade-1 of the service are existing at present and that in working out the quota rule, out of 19 posts, 5 posts are to be filled up by direct recruits, but so far only 2 posts have been filled up by direct recruits one by Respondent No. 12 in January, 1983 and the other by petitioner No. 2, who has recently been appoin­ted in the Grade-1 cadre of the service. Thereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are depriving the members of the Bar of their legit­imate share of appointment in the Grade-1 cadre of service in vio­lation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of the Servi­ce Rules. As regards Rule 3 of the 'Seniority Rule', Mr.Deb has sub­mitted that the provision of Rule 3 is arbitrary and irrational and is viola live of the provision of Rule 6 (3) (b) of the Service Rules. The provision of this Rule is totally disadvantageous to the direct recruits. The provision of Rule 3 of the 'Seniority Rule' is incon­sistent with the Service Rules which provides two source; of recru­itment with fixed quota Mr. Deb has drawn our attention to the Rule 4 of the Seniority Rule which provides that the inter se seniority of the Grade-III of the Tripura Judicial Service, who are appointed on the basis of competitive examination, held by the Public Service Commission and recruited by selection from amongst the members of the Bar, shall be determined in rotation in the proportion of 1 : 1 and has submitted that there cannot be any rational basis for not providing determination of seniority in rotation between the direct recruits and the prornotees in the Grade-I cadre of the service. Mr. Deb has further submitted that sis is usually done, all the vacant posts are immediately filled up by promotion, recruitment from the Bar takes some-time and consequently, the promotees who come to occupy the vacancies which fall within the quota of direct re­cruit, get undue benefit of seniority by virtue of their irregular app­ointment in those vacancies, falling within the quota of direct re­cruits. In support of the contention that seniority rule cannot override the recruitment rules Mr. In support of the contention that seniority rule cannot override the recruitment rules Mr. Deb has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Siva Ready vs. State of Anddhra Pradesh, (1988 (Supp) SCC 225), wherein the Hon'ble Su­preme Court has approved the decision of Full Bench of the Adm­inistrative Tribunal that the direct recruits were placed at a disad­vantageous position and Seniority Rule should not be allowed to, override the Recruitment Rules. 7). For facilitating a proper understanding of the problems, it is necessary to have a look into the following provisions of Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 1974 :- "Rule 2 (1)-"Duty Post" means any post specified in the First Schedule. Constitution of service and its Classification. Rule 3.(1)- There shall be constituted a service to be known as the Tripura Judicial Service consist­ing of the grades of officers as shown in the First Schedule appended to these rules. (2) The service shall have three grades, namely:- (a) Grade-I (b) Grade-II (c) Grade-III Strength of service. Rule 5.(1)- The authorised permanent strenght of the service and the posts included therein shall be as specified in the First Schedule. ------------------ (3) The Governor may, except in the case of pasts of Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the High Court, from time to time, leave unfilled or hold in abeyance any post in the cadre or may increase the cadre by the creation of additional, per­manent or temporary posts as may be found necessary, in consultation with the High Court. Recruitment. Rule-6(3)(b)-Appointment to the posts in Grade -I other than the Legal Remembrancer and Secr­etary, Law Department and the Registrar, High Court, shall be made by the Governor by prom­otion from Grade II in consultation with the High Court and by direct recruitment from the Bar on the recommendation of the High Court : Provided that 25% of the posts shall be reserved to be filled up by direct recruitment. Qualifications for recruitment to the service in Grade-I & Grade-II. Rule-7 (I)- Appointment to the post of Grade-l and Grade II by promotion from the next grade below shall be made on the ground of merit-cum seniority. Qualifications for recruitment to the service in Grade-I & Grade-II. Rule-7 (I)- Appointment to the post of Grade-l and Grade II by promotion from the next grade below shall be made on the ground of merit-cum seniority. (2) A candidate for direct recruitment from the Bar to the post of Grade I shall satisfy the fol­lowing conditions, besides general conditions laid down under rule 9: (i) He shall not be less than 35 years and more than 45 years on the first day of January of the year of recruitment ; (ii) He shall be a practising advocate of any court in India and should have so practised commendably for a period of not less than 7(seven) years. Rule 11-All appointments other than appointment to temporary posts under these rules shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment to such post: Probation and confirmation. Provided that service rendered in a temporary or in an officiating capacity in an equivalent post of judicial service under any Government may be taken into account in computing the period of probation : Provided further that the High Court may relax or extend the period of probation of any member of the Service and on completion of the period of probation, the members of the Service shall be confirmed in their respective Grades by the High Court." Scdedule-I to the Rules at the constitution of the Service consists of the following posts in the Grade I cadre of the Service. CRADE STRENGTH FIRST SCHEDULE Sl. No. Nature of posts No. of Post Existing scale of pay. Revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1.3. 1974. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. GRADE-I 1. Legal Remembrancer & Secretary, Law Department. 1(one) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1800,- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- 2. Registrar, High Court 1(one) Rs. 1200.-50-1400-EB 50-1800/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- 3. District & Sessions Judge. 1(one) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1800/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- 4. Additional District & Sessions Judge. 2(two) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1800/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/ 5. Deputation/Leave Reserve. 1(one) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1600/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- Total 6(six) 8. 1(one) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1800,- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- 2. Registrar, High Court 1(one) Rs. 1200.-50-1400-EB 50-1800/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- 3. District & Sessions Judge. 1(one) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1800/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- 4. Additional District & Sessions Judge. 2(two) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1800/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/ 5. Deputation/Leave Reserve. 1(one) Rs. 1200-50-1400-EB 50-1600/- Rs. 1600-75 1900/- Total 6(six) 8. By third amendment of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, made by Notification No. F. 1 (11) J (G/86 dated 23rd De­cember, 1986, published in the Tripura Gazette (Extraordinary; in its issue dated 23.12.86, four posts are added to the permanent st­rength of Grade-I cadre of the Service by including these posts in Schedule-I with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. By Tripura Judicial Service (6th Amendment) Rales, 1989, as per Notification No. F. 1 (25- Law/76 dated 7th June, 1989, two temporary posts of District & Sessions Judge created by the afore­said Notification dated 3rd November, 1980 and three posts of Ad­ditional District & Sessions Judge created under Notification dated 22nd October, 1981, were added to the permanent strength of Grade-I service by including those posts in Schedule-1. The incision of the 5 (five) posts in Schedule-I was made with retrospective effect from the date of initial creation thereof on temporary basis. On going through the Rules question arises-as to whether direct recruitment can be made in respect of temporary posts or should be confined to authorised permanent strength of the service. In other-words, whe­ther quota rule should apply to both the permanent and temporary Grade-I posts of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules. In the case of V.B. Badami (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the princi­ples generally to be followed in working out quota Rules. In para-29 of the Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : ''29. In working out the quota rule, these principles are gene­rally followed. First, where rules prescribe quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation or substantive appoint­ment can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the per­manent strength of the cadre. Second, confirmed persons are senior to those who are officiating. Third, as between persons appointed in officiating capacity, seniority is to be counted on the length of continuous service. Fourth, direct recruitment is po­ssible only by competitive examination which is the prescribed procedure under the rules. In promotional vacancies, the prom­otion is either by selection or on the principle of seniority-cum merit. Third, as between persons appointed in officiating capacity, seniority is to be counted on the length of continuous service. Fourth, direct recruitment is po­ssible only by competitive examination which is the prescribed procedure under the rules. In promotional vacancies, the prom­otion is either by selection or on the principle of seniority-cum merit. A promotion could be made in respect of a tem­porary post or for a specified period but a direct recruitment has generally to be made only in respect of clear permanent vacancy either existing or anticipated to arise at or about the period of probation is expected to be completed. Fifth, if pr­omotions are made to vacancies in excess of the promotional quota, the promotions may not be totally illegal but would be irregular. The promotees cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts unless the vacancies fall within their quota. If the promotees occupy any vacancies which are with­in the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the direct recruits will occupy the vacancies within their quota. Promotees who were occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct recruits will either be reverted or they will be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota in the facts and circumstances of a case.” It is apparent from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that quota rules should generally be worked out in respect of permanent vacancies and not in respect of temporary vacancies. In the case of S. Patwardhan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-33 thereof held : "There is no universal rule, either that a cadre cannot consist of both permanent and temporary employees or that it must consist of both. That is primarily a matter of rules and regu­lations governing the particular service in relation to which the question regarding the composition of a cadre arises." In the said decision Hon'ble Supreme Court also took into consideration the ratio of the decision of the case of V. B. Badami (Supra) and distinguished the decision on the facts of Patwardhan's case, la para-42 of Patwardhan's (Supra) case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held; "42. Reliance was also placed by the direct recruits on an­other decision of this Court in V. S, Badami vs. State of Mysore (1976) 4 SCR 815 in which it was held that in cases where rules prescribe a quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmations for substantive appointments can only be made in clear vacancies occurring in the permanent strength of the cadre and that confirmed persons have to be treated as senior to those who are officiating. This decision is distin­guishable because it is based on the consideration that Rule 9 of the Probation Rules of 1957 provided for confirmation of a probationer as a full member of the service in any substa­ntive vacancy in the permanent cadre and that rule establi­shed the exclusion of temporary posts from the cadre. Since the cadre consisted of permanent posts only, confirmation in permanent posts necessarily determined the inter se seni­ority of officers." New let us see whether the provisions of Tripura Judicial Serv­ice Rules contemplates working out of quota Rules both in respect of permanent posts and temporary posts. Rule 11 of the Service Rules provides that all appointments, other than appointment in temporary posts under the Rules shall be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of appointment to such post. AS such, all substantive appointments in the service whether by promotion or by direct recruitment must be made initially on probation for 2 years. Rule 5 of the Ser­vice Rules provides that the authorised permanent strength of the ser­vice and the posts included therein shall be as specified in the first Schedule. By Rule 2 (1) of the Service Rules 'Duty Post' means any post specified in the first Schedule. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 contemplates creation of additional, permanent or temporary posts by the Government. From the scheme of the seniority Rules it appears that the de­cision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami (supra) is applicable in working out quota Rules in filling up the posts of Tripura Judicial Service. In view of the clear decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami (Supra) we are of the view that application of the quota Rule in Tripura Judicial Service sho­uld be confined only in respect of permanent strenght of the service specified in the First Schedule. In view of the clear decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami (Supra) we are of the view that application of the quota Rule in Tripura Judicial Service sho­uld be confined only in respect of permanent strenght of the service specified in the First Schedule. As such, the contention of the pet­itioner that after creation of five temporary posts in the Grade-1 in the year 1951, at least one more posts should have been filled up by direct recruit from amongst the members of the Bar and that at present at least 5 in Grade-1 of the service should be filled by direct recruits cannot be sustained. 9. Another question may arise that in view of the amendment in the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, purporting to include five posts in the Grade-1 of the service temporarily created in the year 1980-81 with retrospective effect from the date of creation in the First Schedule by Notification dated 7.6.89, the quota rule should be given effect by filling up one more post in Grade-1 cadre of the service by direct recruit from amongst the members of the Bar. But retrospective operation of this amendment cannot be allowed to take away the vested right already accrued to the promotees. So also this amendment with retrospective effect cannot operate to take away the vested right that had already accrued to the direct recruit, namely respondent No. 12 as per decision of this Court in the case of Durgadas (Supra) (See K. C. Arora vs. State of Haryana (1984) 2 SCC 281 .) However, after adding 4 posts in the Grade-I of the service, by Tripura Judicial Service Rules (3rd Amendment) by Notification dated 23rd December, 1986, the permanent strength of Grade-I was increased by 4 posts and out of the 4 pasts one post should have been filled up by direct recruit by making appointment from amongst the members of the Bar and that at present out of the 15 posts of permanent authorised strength of Grade-I of the Service, 4 posts should be filled up by direct recruit. After taking into consideration a catena of previous decisions of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the case of Sonal (supra) held : "10. After taking into consideration a catena of previous decisions of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the case of Sonal (supra) held : "10. Badami's case ( AIR 1980 SC 1561 ) referred to several authorities of the Court and clearly drew out the judicial consensus on the point in issue by concluding that the quota rule had to be strictly enforced and it was not open to the authorities to meddle with it on the ground of administrative exigencies ' 10. On the question of fixation of seniority in the Grade-I as already observed, Rule-3 of the Seniority Rules provides that the inter se seniority of all the members of Grade-I of the Service, whether direct recruits or promotees, shall be determined with ref­erence to the date of their appointment in the grade. A challenge has been made on the validity of Rule 3 of the Seniority Rule on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules inas­much as if the date of appointment whether permanent or temporary form the basis of fixation of inter se seniority, the provision of the Seniority Rules will place the direct recruit at a disadvantageous position and Rule 3 of Seniority Rule, thereby overrides the provisions of Recruitment Rules. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami (supra) in para-29 while laying down the principle to be generally followed for working out Recruitment Rules has held that where rules prescribes quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation of substantive appointment can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre and that confirmed persons are senior to those who are officiating. If promotions are made to vacancies in excess of the promotional quota, the promotions may not be totally illegal but would be irregular. The promotees cannot claim any right to hold the promotional posts unless the vacancies fall within their quota. If the promotees occupy any vacancies which are within the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the directs will occupy the vacancies within their quota. Promotees who are occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct recruits, will either be reverted or they will be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota. If the promotees occupy any vacancies which are within the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the directs will occupy the vacancies within their quota. Promotees who are occupying the vacancies within the quota of direct recruits, will either be reverted or they will be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota. In the case of Sonal (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-11 of the judgment has held: "The scheme in force relating to the services for fixing inter se seniority takes into account the filling up of the vacancies in the service from the two sources on the basis of the quota and, therefore, fixation of inter se seniority in the Gradation List has to be worked out on the basis of quota." In para 19 of the said case it has been held : "In a precedent bound judicial system binding authorities have got to be respected and the procedure, for developing the law has to be one of evolution. It is not necessary for disp­osal of these matters before us to go into that aspect except noticing the existence of distortion in the filed. The rationa­lisation of the view in a way known to law is perhaps to be attempted some day in future. In the present batch of cases the law being clear and particularly the mandate in the rule being that when recruitment takes place the promotee has to make a room for the direct recruit, every promotee in such a situation would not be entitled to claim any further benefit than the advantage of being in a promotional post not due to him but yet filled by him in the absence of a direct recruit, One aspect which we consider relevant to bear in mind is that the promoted officer has got the advantage of having been promoted before it became his due and is not being made to lose his promotional position. The dispute is confined to one of seniority only. The advantage received by the promotee before his chance opened should be balanced against his for­feiture of claim to seniority. The dispute is confined to one of seniority only. The advantage received by the promotee before his chance opened should be balanced against his for­feiture of claim to seniority. If the matter is looked at from that angle there would be no scope for heart-burning or at any rate dissatisfaction is expected to be reduced so far as the promotees are concerned." In the case of K. Siva Reddy (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the decision of the full Bench of the Administrative Tribunal that Seniority Rules cannot be allowed to override the Recruitment Rules. Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules has to be tested and interpreted in the light of the aforesaid decision. The interpret­ation of the date of appointment appearing in Rule 3 of the Seni­ority Rules, incur opinion, is most vital. Keeping in view the settled position of law as per the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that 'date of appointment' should be interpreted as 'the date of substantive appointment' in the cadre as per Rule 11 of the Service Rules. 'Date of appointment' cannot be taken literally to include the date of officiating appointment or appointment in the temporary post even if continuous, for the purpose of fixation of inter se seniority amongst the direct recruits as the promotees of the members of Grade-I services. If the date of temporary appointment or officiating appointment, even though continuous, are taken into account for determination of inter se seniority between the direct rec­ruits and the promotees in the cadre, the direct recruitment whose appointment is confined to the posts of permanent strength of the cadre, will invariably be placed at a great disadvantage and 'that also will amount to treating the unequals enqually inasmuch as we have held that quota rule can only be applied in respect of perm­anent posts. This decision of us, may come in conflict with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Durgadas (supra) inasmuch as in para 51 thereof it has been held : "We may say here that though the petitioner may be conf­irmed earlier than respondent No. 3 to 7, the same would not affect inter se seniority between them inasmuch as under the seniority Rules, the deciding factor is the 'date of appointment' which is a right principle in this regard because counting of seniority from the date of confirmation would have been highly hazardous inasmuch as confirmation is one of the 'inglorious uncertainties of the Government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor availability of substantive vac­ancies' as observed in para 39 of T. P. Patwardhan vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 2051 ". Ordinarily, we would have referred the matter to a larger Bench for a decision. But we are of the view that reference to a larger Bench is not necessary for the following reasons; a) In the case of Durgadas (Supra) the petitioner claimed seniority over Respondents 3 to 7 of that petition on the gro­und that these respondents were not appointed against the cad­re post and they having been appointed in the ex-cadre posts, could not claim seniority over the person who has been app­ointed in the cadre post. But this Court held that these posts though temporary, were within the cadre. b) No challenge was made as regards the validity of Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules nor this Court was required to inte­rpret the applicability of Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami (supra) and Sonal (Supra). c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court by a decision in K. Siva Reddy (Supra) has approved the decision of the full Bench of the Tribunal that seniority Rule should not be allowed to ove­rride the Recruitment Rules. In fact, the Judgment of the Sup­reme Court in the case of K. Siva (Supra) was delivered after the Judgment in the case of Durgadas (Supra). The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonal (Supra) was delivered on 11.8.87 and it was not available before this Court while deciding the case of Durgadas (Supra). In fact, the Judgment of the Sup­reme Court in the case of K. Siva (Supra) was delivered after the Judgment in the case of Durgadas (Supra). The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonal (Supra) was delivered on 11.8.87 and it was not available before this Court while deciding the case of Durgadas (Supra). d) In the case of Durgadas (Supra) determination of senio­rity in the light of the quota Rule was not agitated which occassioned non-perception of the clear decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where rules prescribed quota between direct recruits and promotees, confirmation or substan­tive appointment could only be made in respect of clear vac­ancies in the permanent strength of the cadre and that con­firmed persons would be senior to those officiating. e) Subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonal (Supra) and Siva Reddy (supra) have fortifi­ed our view. We are to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, without being deterred by the previous decision of our Court in which different view from that of the Supreme Court has been expressed. 11. It is submitted at the Bar that after the decision of this Court in the case of Durgadas (supra) holding that appointment of respondents No. 4 to 7 under Rule 11 of the Service Rules on pro­bation and the consequent confirmation of respondent No. 4 Sri N. G. Das, could not be sustained, and that the petitioner Sri Durgadas Purakayastha was rightly appointed as the direct recruit in the Grade-I service under Rule 11 of the Service Rules against a perma­nent post should be confirmed after completion of two years probationary period if his performance was found satisfactory, Shri. Purakayastha has been confirmed, But no order has yet been passed for appointing respondent Nos. 4 to 7 or any other promotees in Grade-I cadre against vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre under Rule 11 of the Service Rules and consequently all of them are still holding the Grade-I post temporarily. 4 to 7 or any other promotees in Grade-I cadre against vacancies in the permanent strength of the cadre under Rule 11 of the Service Rules and consequently all of them are still holding the Grade-I post temporarily. After the amendment of the Rules by Notification dated 23rd December, 1986, adding four more posts in the Grade-l cadre and subsequeut addi­tion of five more posts in the permanent strength of cadre, there could be any be any impediment for appointing the promotees in the Grade-I posts substantively against the vacancies falling within their quota, that is, 75% of the permanent vacant posts. From the facts and circumstances stated above, we are constrained to observe that the quota rule in respect of filling up the past in the Grade-I of the service substantively, has not been working out properly but in a confused manner, which has given rise to anomalies and heart­burning. A number of officers who should have been confirmed much earlier have still remained temporary even after years of continuous service Such anomaly should be removed even at this belated stage. To sum up we hold that : (i) Quota Rule has to be strictly enforced and it is not open to the authorities to meddle with it on the ground of admi­nistrative exigencies. (ii) Quota Rule is linked up with the Seniority Rules unless the quota rule is strictly observed in practice it would be di­fficult to hold the Seniority Rule and Seniority Rule cannot be allowed to override the Recruitment quota rule. (iii) In the case of filling up vacancies in the service from two sources on the basis of quota, fixation of inter se seniority in the Gradation list has to be worked out on the basis of quota. (iv) Date of appointment' appearing in Rule 3 of the 'Sen­iority Rules' should be the date of substantive appointment as per provision of Rule 11 of the Service Rules. v) From the provisions of the Rules of the Tripura Judicial Service, it is apparent that principle of working out the quota rule as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-29 in the case of V'. B. Badami vs. State of Mysore, ( AIR 1980 SC 1561 ) should be followed. vi) If the promotions are made to vacancies in Gr. B. Badami vs. State of Mysore, ( AIR 1980 SC 1561 ) should be followed. vi) If the promotions are made to vacancies in Gr. 1 in excess of the promotional quota, that is, in excess, of 75% of the permanent authorised strength, such promotees cannot have right to hold the promotional post unless the vacancies fall within their quota and if the promotees occupy any va­cancies which are within the quota of direct recruits, when direct recruitment takes place, the direct recruits will occupy the vacancies within their quota and the promotees who were occupying the vaca­ncies within the quota of direct recruits, will either be reverted or will be absorbed in the vacancies subsequently arise in their quota. vi) The quota rule will not apply in respect of temporary post, but it can only apply in respect of the permanent auth­orised strength of the service as specified in the First Schedule. vii) 25% of the post in the Grade-I Judicial Service of the authorised permanent strength of the service shall have to be filled up by direct recruit by making appointment from amo­ngst the members of the Bar as per provision of the Rules. Consequently, out of 15 authorised permanent posts, 4 posts should be filled up by direct recuritment from amongst the members of the Bar and 11 posts by the promotees. viii) Inclusion of five permanent posts in the Grade-I with retrospective effect as per Notification dated 7th June, 1989 cannot be allowed to operate to adversely effect or undo the vested right already accrued to any member of the Grade-I of the Service. 12. In our attempt to steer clear of the confused state of affairs; as regards substantive appointment and confirmation and fixation of inter se seniority, we direct that before the date of appointment of petitioner No. 2, Sri. Subrata Paul, the vacant posts in the authorised permanent strength is to be worked out and respondents No. 4 to 7 and other promotees be suitably appointed substantively against those permanent pasts and confirmed as per Rule 11 of the service Rules. But in view of the decision in the case of Durgadas (supra) all such appointments and confirmation of any of the promotees should be made with effect from a date subsequent to the date of appointment and confirmation of respondent No. 12. But in view of the decision in the case of Durgadas (supra) all such appointments and confirmation of any of the promotees should be made with effect from a date subsequent to the date of appointment and confirmation of respondent No. 12. The inter se seniority of members of Grade-I cadre of the Service should be determined as per this decision, namely with reference to the date of substantive appointment as per Rule 11 of the Service Rules in the Grade-I cadre of the Service and be published. This should be done expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from today. In respect of the 2 (two) vacant posts falling within the Quota of direct recr­uits in the cadre of Grade-I of the Service, which are yet to be filled up by direct recruits, an early step is to be taken to fill up those 2 vacant posts by making appointment from amongst the members of the Bar.