P. K. Sarkar, J. — The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.94 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule Nos.521 of 1993 and 1713 of 1990 dismissing the aforesaid two writ petitions. 2. We have beared Mr. SN Medhi, assisted by Ms. Rekha Chakraborty, Mr. A. Choudhury and Mr. SK medhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ writ petitioner; Mr. DP Chaliha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.3,4 and 5. 3. The appeallant Sri Bishnu Dutta Bhuyan, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar, a Member of Grade II of Assam Judicial Service, was appointed by the Governor of Assam as Additional District and Sessions Judge under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and on such appointment his services were placed at the disposal of the Political Department of Assam Government for his appointment as a Member of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal. On the basis of the aforesaid appointment order issued by the Assam Government by notification at Annexure IJI to the Civil Rule, the appellant/petitioner claimed his seniority in the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge which is a Grade I post in Assam Judicial Service. Learned Single Judge did not agree with the claim of seniority by the appellant/petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. 4. The respondents, Registrar, High Court and State of Assam contended that the Government decided to set up some Tribunals under Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals Act. The qualification for appointment of Member of such Tribunal is a serving or retired District Judge or Additional District Judge. Since sufficient number of District or Additional District Judges were not available, it was decided to create some posts of Additional District Judge and promote some Grade II officers of Assam Judicial Service who are willing to be considered for appointment as Member of the Tribunal. It is further contended that these newly created posts are not cadre posts of Assam Judicial Service and these posts were created with the sole purpose of manning the posts of Member of the Tribunal. 5. It is further contended that these newly created posts are not cadre posts of Assam Judicial Service and these posts were created with the sole purpose of manning the posts of Member of the Tribunal. 5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant/ petitioner can claim his seniority in Grade I of Assam Judicial Service on the basis of his appointment, as contained in Annexure III to the writ petition. 6. Mr. SN Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has argued before us that since the appellant/petitioner has been appointed under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, as Additional District and Sessions Judge, such appointment shall be deemed to be an appointment in Grade I of Assam Judicial Service and, therefore, he is entitled to claim his seniority from the date of his appointment in the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. 7. For the purpose of determining this question, it is necessary to examine whether the appellant has been appointed in a cadre post of Grade I of the Assam Judicial Service. Rule 4 of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967, provides for the cadre strength of the service. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides, inter alia, that the Governor may increase the cadre strength by creation of additional, permanent or temporary post, as may be found necessary, in consultation with the High Court. 8. For deciding the question it is also necessary to examine the object, manner and the purpose for which the posts were created, and whether it can be considered that the posts created for the purpose of appointment as Member, Illegal Migrant (Determination) Tribunals can be treated as posts under the Assam Judicial Service Rules. From the letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political Department, at Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Interveners (Assam Judicial Service Association), it appears that twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge were created for appointment as Member of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. From the letter of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political Department, at Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Interveners (Assam Judicial Service Association), it appears that twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge were created for appointment as Member of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. From the letter of the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam at Annexure B to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Interveners, it appears that the Government of Assam retained the aforesaid twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge for a further period of one year upto the end of February, 1987. From the letter of the Secretary to the Government of Assam at Annexure B2 to the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition, it further appears that the Government of Assam expressed its inability to include these twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge as the cadre posts of Assam Judicial Service which were created solely for the purpose of appointment as Member under the provisions of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals Act, 1983. From the notification of the Gauhati High Court dated 18th August, 1987 (Annexure B3 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Interveners), it appears that the appellant along with four others belonging to Grade II of the Assam Judicial Service were recommended for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge for their posting as Member of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals only. In the aforesaid notification, it has been made clear by the High Court that these appointments to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge will not amount to promotion to the Assam Judicial Service in Grade I and their seniority and promotion in the cadre post shall not be disturbed by the aforesaid appointment which was for the sole purpose of appointment as Member of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals only. So, from the aforesaid letters and notification of the Government and the High Court, it is abundantly clear that it was neither the intention of the Government nor of the High Court to include the aforesaid twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge within the cadre strength of the Assam Judicial Service either as permanent, temporary or additional posts. So, from the aforesaid letters and notification of the Government and the High Court, it is abundantly clear that it was neither the intention of the Government nor of the High Court to include the aforesaid twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge within the cadre strength of the Assam Judicial Service either as permanent, temporary or additional posts. The appellant/petitioner SriBD Bhuyan before his appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge was well aware that such promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge was for the sole-purpose of his appointment as a Member of the aforesaid Tribunal. Such appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge was necessary in view of the requirement of the provisions of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals Act, 1983. The aforesaid Act requires that a Member of the Tribunal should be a serving or a retired District and Sessions Judge or an Additional District and Sessions Judge. So, it is clear that the promotion of the appellant to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge was for the sole purpose of satisfying the requirement of the provisions of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals Act so as to enable the Government to appoint him as Member of the Tribunal. Since the twenty posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge were created for the sole purpose of appointment of Member of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. The Government did not add the aforesaid posts of Additional District Judges in the cadre strength of the Assam Judicial Service. Therefore, it can not be said that the appellant/petitioner was appointed against a permanent, temporary or even an additional post of Assam Judicial Service. Consequently, he cannot claim his seniority on the basis of such appointment. Of course, a Member of the Assam Judicial Service can claim his seniority only from the date of his promotion if he is appointed in a cadre post of Assam Judicial Service. 9. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has submitted that since the appellant has been appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge under section 6 (1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, he shall be deemed to have been appointed in Grade I of the Assam Judicial Service for all purposes including his seniority. We cannot agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel in view of the facts and circumstances already explained above. We cannot agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel in view of the facts and circumstances already explained above. Further, we cannot accept the proposition mat the appellant/petitioner has been appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Grade 1 of the Assam Judicial Service in view of the fact that his appointment has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. The appellant/petitioner was never promoted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge with the intention to fill up the post of Grade I of the Assam Judicial Service. On the contrary, he has been appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge only to enable the Government of Assam to appoint him as a Member of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal. From the letter of the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam No.PLB. 151/87/5 dated 28th September, 1987 (Annexure V) it appears that the Government has settled the terms of appointment of the Judicial Officers of Assam and other States who are appointed as Member of Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunals. The terms of appointment are absolutely different from the terms of appointment of the Member of Assam Judicial Service. If there had been any intention of the Government or the High Court to include these posts in the cadre strength of Assam Judicial Service then it was not necessary for the Government to settle separate terms for the holder of newly created posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that these newly created posts of Additional District Judges are not the cadre posts of Assam Judicial Service and we are satisfied that these were created to fill up the posts of Members of the Tribunals. Consequently, there may not be any question of counting his seniority from the date of such appointment and also of appointment as a Member of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has discussed all the points in details and he has given reasons for his finding and we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. 10. For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is dismissed. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the. parties shall bear their own costs.