A. K. Patnaik, J- This is a public interest litigation filed by the High Court Bar Association of Tripura, Agartala through its Secretary under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ directing the respondents to fill up the present vacant post of Judge of the Gauhati High Court from the Tripura quota from amongst the members of the Bar and to direct the Union of India, respondent No. 1, not to appoint Sri Pradip Kumar Sarkar, Judicial Secretary, Govt. of Tripura as a Judge of the Gauhati High Court. 2. For the aforesaid writs, the facts and grounds which have been pleaded in the writ petition are that it had been decided by the respondent No.1, Union of India, that the Judge strength of the Tripura Bench of the Gauhati High Court would be three comprising of two permanent Judges and one Additional Judge, as would be evident from the letter dated 16th September. 1987 of the then 'Minister of Law and Justice to the Governor of Assam and Meghalaya, a copy of which has been annexed to this petition as Annexiire 2. Thereafter by a notification dated 14th. May, 1992 of the respondent No.1 (Annexure 5) to Gauhati High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Agartala) Order, 1992 was published a reading of which would make it clear that the permanent Bench at the Gauhati High Court at Agartala was to comprise of at least 3 Judges. Out of the Judge strength of 3 Judges of the Agartala Bench of the Gautiati High Court, 2 Judges have already been appointed and the third post of Additional Judge is yet to be filled up. According to the case of the petitioners, this third vacant post of Additional Judge of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court has to be filled up from amongst the members of the Bar in accordance with the quota of 66% and 33% between the Bar and Subordinate Judiciary respectively fixed for appointment of High Court Judges by the respondent No. 1 because there have been only 3 appointments till now from the Bar and Subordinate Judiciary of Tripura and out of the said 3 appointments, 2 have been from the Subordinate Judiciary and only one from the Bar. Hence, the third post of Judge of Agartala Bench at present lying vacant ought to be filled up from the Bar and yet the respondent No.7, Shri Pradip Kumar Sarkar, who does not belong to the Bar has been recommended for appointment to this third post of Judge of the permanent Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Agartala. The further case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondent No.7 is not qualified to be appointed as Judge of the High Court as he has not held a Judicial Office in the Tripura for at least 10 years as required under Article 217 (2) (a) of the Constitution. It has also been stated in the writ petition that there is a dispute in the matter of seniority in Tripura Judicial Service (Grade I) between the respondent No.7 and Sri Durgadas Purkayastha who is now functioning as District Judge at West Tripura and that there was a decision of the Gauhati High Court that Shri Purkayastha was senior to respondent No.7 and against the said decision SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court which is still pending. 3. When the writ petition was listed before the Court on 2.6.95, the Court passed orders that it was necessary that the Central Government should make the position clear relating to the actual position of quota from the Bar and the Judicial Service and as to whether the post of Additional Judge of Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court was meant for members of the Judicial Service or the members of the Bar. Pursuant to the said order dated 2.6.95, Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, Senior CGSC filed a copy of the message dated 13.6.95 received by him from the Joint Secretary, Department of Justice, Govt. of India furnishing the aforesaid information sought for by this Court. The said message dated 13.6.95 of the Joint Secretary, Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi is quoted herein below in extenso : "To : Shri KN Bhattacharyya, Senior Central Govt Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court Agartala Bench, Agartala From : Joint Secretary Department of Justice Jaislmer House, New Delhi. The said message dated 13.6.95 of the Joint Secretary, Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi is quoted herein below in extenso : "To : Shri KN Bhattacharyya, Senior Central Govt Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court Agartala Bench, Agartala From : Joint Secretary Department of Justice Jaislmer House, New Delhi. K-12017/1/95-US-II 13.6.95 Secret Kindly refer to your letter dated 3.6.95 which was received on 7.6.95 regarding Civil Rule No.300 of 1995 and stay petition (Misc Case No.274 of 1995) filed by the High Court Bar Association of Tripura vs. UI & 6 others (.) Para (. ) In this connection it may be stated that by convention, appointment of Judge were being made in the ratio 2 : 1 between the members of the Bar and Judicial service (.) No rigidity is being followed in this regard and the position varies from High Court to High Court (.) However the conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices held on 4.12.93 recommended, inter alia that number of vacancies in each High Court to be filled up from subordinate judicial should be in larged, this number 84 to 40 percent (.) This recommendation has been communicated in MSLJ's circular letter dated 4.5.94 to Chief Justices, Chief Ministers and Governor of the States for necessary action (.) In the Gauhati High Court the approved strength is 17 permanent Judges and 2 Additional Judges (.) At present 13 permanent Judges and 1 Additional Judge are in position, leaving 4 vacancies of permanent Judges and 1 vacancy of an Additional Judge to be filed up ( . ) It may be stated that from 7 North Eastern States, 13 permanent Judges are functioning in the Gauhati and outside High Court, the 7 are from the Bar and 4 from the Judicial service (.) Thus, in the accepted ratio of 60 : 40 between member of the Bar and judicial service, 6 more persons from 7 North Eastern States (2 from bar and 4 from Judicial service) could be considered for fresh appointment as permanent Additional Judges in the Gauhati and outside High Courts ( . ) Para ( . ) The Chief Justice of the High Court may exercise his discretion to relax this in favour of either side in case a suitable person is not available from the category in whose share the vacancy of tensibly falls ( . ) Para ( . ) Para ( . ) The Chief Justice of the High Court may exercise his discretion to relax this in favour of either side in case a suitable person is not available from the category in whose share the vacancy of tensibly falls ( . ) Para ( . ) The appointment of Judges of the High Courts are made in terms of Article 217 (1) of Constitution of India (.) It is for the Chief Justice of the High Court to assess the suitability of the members of the Bar and those of the Judicial service of the State and to recommend them in terms of Article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as High Court Judges (. ) As and when such persons are recommended by the state constitutional authorities, they are considered in consultation with the Chief Justice of India for appointment as High Court Judges (.) Para (.) Regarding the Court's observation that the Central Govt. should make it clear whether the post of Additional Judge for Agartala Bench is meant for members of subordinate Judicial service or not or it may be filled up from the members of the Bar or from the members of the subordinate judicial service (.) As expte med above it is for the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to decide whether the post of an Additional Judge for Agartala Bench should be filled in by an Additional Judge from Judicial service or from the Bar." 4. A reading of the aforesaid message of the Joint Secretary, Department of Justice, Govt. of India would show that the conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices held on 4". 12.93 recommended that the number of vacancies in each High Court (not in each Bench of the High Court) to be filled up from the Subordinate Judiciary has been enlarged to 40% and hence a ration 60 : 40 was to maintained between the members of the Bar and Judicial Service. 12.93 recommended that the number of vacancies in each High Court (not in each Bench of the High Court) to be filled up from the Subordinate Judiciary has been enlarged to 40% and hence a ration 60 : 40 was to maintained between the members of the Bar and Judicial Service. It has been explained in the aforesaid message that it was for the Chief Justice of the High Court to exercise discretion to relax the ratio in favour of either side in case a suitable person was not available from the category in whose share the vacancy falls and that it was accordingly for the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to decide whether the post of Additional Judge for Agratala Bench should be filled up by from the Judicial Service or from the Bar. 5. When the matter was listed for admission before the Court on 6.11.95, however, Mr. S. Deb, Secretary of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association of Tripura vehemently argued that although the aforesaid message of the Joint Secretary, Department of Justice does not expressly state that the ratio of 60:40 to be maintained between the Bar and the Judicial Service in respect of appointment of High Court Judge is in relation to any particular Bench of a High Court, the fact that the vacancies falling into the share of Judicial Service have to be filled up from amongst the Judicial Service of Tripura would make it clear that the vacancies falling into the share of the Bar also have to be filled up from the Bar of Tripura. He submitted that the facts as stated in the writ petition would show that two of the three appointments made so far to the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court have been from the Judicial Service and hence the ratio 60:40 between the Bar and the Judicial Service has not been maintained and in all fairness the vacant post of Additional Judge of the Agartala Bench should be filled up from the Bar. Regarding the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to decide whether the post of Additional Judge of Agartala Bench is to be filled up from the Judicial Service or from the Bar of Tripura, Mr. Regarding the discretion of the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court to decide whether the post of Additional Judge of Agartala Bench is to be filled up from the Judicial Service or from the Bar of Tripura, Mr. Deb submitted that this discretion can be exercised by the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court only after considering the members of the Bar for the third vacancy meant for the Bar. In the present case it has been specifically averred in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that no name of member of the Bar has been taken into consideration by the respondents for recommendation for appointment to this third post of Judge of the High Court. Mr. Deb, however, clarified that in case the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court considers the members of the Bar of Tripura and takes a view that no one suitable for appointment as High Court Judge is available from amongst them, then of course he will be fully within his discretion to decided to fill up the post of Additional Judge from the Judicial Service of Tripura. 6. We are afraid cannot go into the merits of this question as to whether the vacancy in the post of Additional Judge of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court is to be filled up from the Bar or from the Subordinate Judiciary in view of the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SC Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India reprted in AIR 1994 SC 268 . As per the judgment of Verma, J. with whom the majority of the Judges of the Constitutional Bench concurred, the scope of judicial review in the matter of appointment of the High Court Judges is limited and except on the ground of want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack of any condition of eligibility an appointment of High Court Judge is not justiciable on any other ground because primacy of judiciary in the matter of such appointment is in itself a sufficient check on a possible executive excess or arbitrariness. " Paragraph 502 and 504 of the said judgment of Verma, J. as is reported at pages 440 and 441 of AIR 1994 SC are quoted herein below: "502. " Paragraph 502 and 504 of the said judgment of Verma, J. as is reported at pages 440 and 441 of AIR 1994 SC are quoted herein below: "502. The primacy of the judiciary in the matter of appointments and its determinative nature in transfers introduces the judicial element in the process, and is itself a sufficient justification for the absence of the need for further judicial review of those decisions, which is ordinarily needed as a check against possible executive excess or arbitrariness. Plurality of Judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, as indicated, is another in built check against the likelihood of arbitrariness or bias, even subconciously, of any individual. The judicial element being predominant in the case of appointments, and decisive in transfers, as indicated, the need for further judicial review as in other executive actions, is eliminated. The reduction of the area of discretion to the minimum, the element of plurality of judges in formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, effective consultation in writing, and prevailing norms to regulate the area of discretion are sufficient check against arbitrariness. 504. This is also in accord with the public interest of excluding these, appointments and transfers from litigative debate, to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions, and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision. The growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busy-bodies in the functioning of the judiciary under the grab of public interest litigation, in spite of the caution in SP Gupta ( AIR 1982 SC 149 ) while expanding the concept of locus standi was adverted to recently by a Constitution Bench in Raj Kanwar. Advocate vs. Union of India. (1992) 4 SCC 605 . It is, therefore, necessary to spell out clearly the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, to avoid similar situations in future. Advocate vs. Union of India. (1992) 4 SCC 605 . It is, therefore, necessary to spell out clearly the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, to avoid similar situations in future. Except on the ground of want of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack of any condition of eligibility in the case of an appointment, or of a transfer being made without the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India, these matters are not justiciable on any other ground, including that of bias which in any case is excluded by the element of plurality in the process of decision making." Mr. Deb submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court applies only in a case where an appointment of a High Court Judge has already been made and is sought to be challenged in a Court of law. We do not agree with this reading Mr. S. Deb of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. 7. Mr. Deb, however, submitted that in paragraph 11 of the writ petition the eligibility of the respondent No. 7 for appointment as Judge of the High Court has also been questioned on the ground that he has not held a Judicial Office in the territory of Tripura for at least 10 years and that a major portion of his service career has been rendered under the Judicial Department, Govt. of Tripura and Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council. Mr. Deb relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Padnia Prasad vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1213 in which the appointment of Sri KN Srivastava as Judge of the High Court was quashed on the ground that he did not hold 'Judicial Office' for at least 10 years as required under Article 217(2) (a) of the Constitution. 8. 8. But we find on a perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Padnia Prasad vs. Union of India (supra) that the Supreme Court held that the expression 'Judicial Office' used in Article 217 (2) (a) of the Constitution would mean an office which is part of the judicial service as defined under Article 236 (b) of the Constitution and after considering the entire service career of Sri KN Srivastava from 1966 to 1990 came to the finding that he had not held 'Judicial Office' for at least 10 years as required under Article 217 (2) (a) of the Constitution so as to be eligible for appointment as High Court Judge. Whereas in paragraph 11 of the writ petition only a bald averment has been made that the respondent No.7 has not held Judicial Office in the territory of Tripura for at least 10 years and that a major portion of his career has been rendered under the Judicial Department, Government of Tripura and Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council. In our opinion, from the facts as pleaded in the aforesaid para 11 of the petition without the particular of entire service career of the respondent No.7 who admittedly belongs to the Tripura Judicial Service (Grade I) as stated in para 10 of the writ petition, it is not possible for us to take even a prima facie view that the respondent No.7 has not held 'Judicial Office' for at least 10 years and was therefore not eligible for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Article 217 (2) (a) of the Constitution. 9. The third ground relating to the dispute regarding seniority of the respondent No.7 vis-a-vis Sri Durgadas Purkayastha in the Grade I of the Judicial Service of Tripura was not pressed by Mr. Deb in course of his submissions and in any case as per the majority judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SC Advocates-on-Record Association (supra) quoted above, a writ petition questioning the recommendation for appointment of respondent No.7 as a High Court Judge on the ground that the matter relating to seniority between him and Sri Purkayastha was in dispute was not justiciable. In the result,, this writ petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.