JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General states that with regard to the Court's directive regarding set up of an All India Judicial Service, the Union of India which was directed to take appropriate steps in that behalf, will file an affidavit stating what action it has taken for the implementation of that direction from the date of the judgment till the date of the filing of the affidavit. Any correspondence that may have ensued between the Union of India and State Governments in this behalf should be also be disclosed to the Court. Similarly, the Union of India will indicate to the Court what action, if any, it has taken for bringing about uniformity about designations of officers of the subordinate judiciary in the country both on the civil and criminal side. Having regard to the fact that these affidavits should have been filed by now and the Court should have been apprised of the action taken, we are disinclined to adjourn the matter beyond two weeks. Let the affidavit be filed within two weeks. 2. List after two weeks for reporting compliance. I.A. No. 22 of 1994 3. We have heard Sri A.K Panda, learned counsel for the State of Orissa. We are told that in regard to the requirement to provide the minimum practice essential as a qualification for recruitment in the subordinate judiciary, the Orissa Judicial Service Rules have since been amended. So also, the direction to enforce the age of superannuation at 60 years subject to the incumbant being found fit for continuance beyond the age of 58 years, the State Government has implemented the same direction. We are told that the library allowance has also been sanctioned. In regard to the supply of vehicles-it is stated that independent vehicles have been provided to all Principal District Judges, Special Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates and funds have been placed at the disposal of the District Judges for purchasing 34 pool vehicles as recommended by the Orissa High Court in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court. Thus, the direction in that behalf is stated to have been complied with. As regards providing of quarters, it is stated that the information supplied by the High Court revealed that 68 Officers were provided with Government quarters and since in the meantime, 17 new courts came to be established, funds amounting to Rs. Thus, the direction in that behalf is stated to have been complied with. As regards providing of quarters, it is stated that the information supplied by the High Court revealed that 68 Officers were provided with Government quarters and since in the meantime, 17 new courts came to be established, funds amounting to Rs. 449.55 Lacs have been provided for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 for construction of 85 residential quarters and for renovation of 50 existing quarters. We are told that the High Court has constituted a committee and the said committee has finalised the design for 25 in R.P. (C) No. 249/92 in W.P(C) No. 1022/89 the quarters. After issue of administrative approval orders by the High Court, the construction work will be undertaken. The Judicial Officers posted at Cuttack and Bhubaneshwar have since been provided with Government quarters meant for other Departments. The Officers at other stations have, however, not been, provided with Government quarters and are being paid House Rent Allowance. 4. We had on the last occasion told counsel for the State of Orissa that he should look up the order which we had passed on 19th August, 1994 in IA No. 3 in R.P. (C) No. 423/92 in W.P. (C) No. 1022/89 in the case of State of Gujarat and obtain the reaction of the State Government for making a similar provision insofar as the State of Orissa is concerned. Counsel states that he had indicated the broad outlines of the directions given in the case of State of Gujarat but has not received any response as yet. We would like the counsel to pursue the matter and obtain the response within four weeks. He should also make it clear to the State Government that if the response is not received by the next date, this Court will pass appropriate orders without waiting for any further time. I.A. No. 21194 5. Counsel seeks leave to withdraw the application. He is permitted to withdraw the application. However, the withdrawal will not prejudice the petitioner from any rights that he may otherwise have. The application is rejected as withdrawn. I.A. No. 24/94 6. None present. The application is dismissed. IA. No. 25/95 7. I.A. No. 21194 5. Counsel seeks leave to withdraw the application. He is permitted to withdraw the application. However, the withdrawal will not prejudice the petitioner from any rights that he may otherwise have. The application is rejected as withdrawn. I.A. No. 24/94 6. None present. The application is dismissed. IA. No. 25/95 7. This Court while considering review petition No. 249 of 1992 in Writ Petition No. 1022 of 1989 along with certain other review petitions arising from the main judgment in the case of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119 , laid down certain requirements - one of which related to the qualification required to be prescribed and the procedure to be adopted for the recruitment of Judges at the grass- roots levels in all States (vide paragraph 20 of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1993)4 SCC 288 ), This Court laid down that legal practice of three years should be one of the essential qualifications for recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy. This direction related to the appointments to be made from the Bar. This direction is consistent with the observations of the Law Commission, 77th Report, found at paragraph 9.5 in Chapter 9. The relevant recommendation reads as under: "We have considered the pros and cons and are of the opinion that the, present system of insisting upon a number of years of practice at the bar as mandatory for recruitment to the subordinate judicial service should continue. The minimum period of. practice, in our opinion, should be three years. Some exception regarding requirement of minimum practice may possibly have to be made in the case of law graduates employed in courts. (emphasis supplied)" 8. Insofar as the recruitment rules are concerned, the relevant rule is rule 5 of the Gujarat Recruitment Service Rules, 1961. That rule provides the method of recruitment. to class 2 of the judicial branch. Some exception regarding requirement of minimum practice may possibly have to be made in the case of law graduates employed in courts. (emphasis supplied)" 8. Insofar as the recruitment rules are concerned, the relevant rule is rule 5 of the Gujarat Recruitment Service Rules, 1961. That rule provides the method of recruitment. to class 2 of the judicial branch. According to that rule, besides the members of the Bar, members of the staff of the High Court as well as subordinate Courts, members of the staff working as Assistants in the legal section of the Legal Department, Sachivalaya, members of the staff of Office of the Government Pleader, High Court and City Civil Court, Ahmedabad are eligible for appointment provided they have obtained the 4 LL.B. (Special) Degree or are qualified for enrollment as an Advocate and have served for a period of not less than 5 ;ears including not less than 2 years after obtaining such Degree or qualifying for such enrollment and are certified to have sufficient knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi and are able to translate from Gujarati to English and English to Gujarati etc. Besides these requirements, these staff members are required to pass an examination called the Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates, First Class Recruitment Examination comprising two papers. Only those of the staff members who pass this rigorous test are entitled to be recruited to the lowest rung of the State Judiciary. The directions given by this Court in the judgment referred to hereinbefore concerned the minimum practice requirement for entry into service from amongst the members of the Bar. The Court had not noticed the provision made by the High Court in regard to the recruitment of staff members with sufficient experience. The experience of five years service is equated to the experience of three years at the bar. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases the direction issued in regard to minimum three years practice at the Bar does not stricto senso apply. 9. We, therefore, clarify this position and hold that the staff members who are eligible under rule 5 and who comply with the requirements of the Rule discussed above could be considered for appointment at the lowest rung in the subordinate judiciary. 9. We, therefore, clarify this position and hold that the staff members who are eligible under rule 5 and who comply with the requirements of the Rule discussed above could be considered for appointment at the lowest rung in the subordinate judiciary. We would, however, make it clear that any dilution of this rule will render them ipso facto ineligible for appointment to the service of the lowest level of State Judicial Service 10. I.A. No. 25 stands disposed of accordingly.