K. R. PRASADA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are filed by the petitioners under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to reserve 15% and 3% of the group-d appointments made during the period from 1-1-1992 to 31-7-1993 and to give appointments to the petitioners against these reserved posts and if adequate number of reserved posts are not available from the date on which the first candidate was appointed on or before 1-1-1992 to give appointment against the posts in general category and issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of the appointment order issued by the 2nd respondent on various dates mentioned in prayer column i (a ). ( 2 ) PETITIONERS submitted application for appointment as "peons" in the High Court of Karnataka on 9-7-1993, 21-8-1992, 5-3-1993, 24-2-1992 and 12-5-1993, but their applications were not considered for appointment by the 1st respondent even though they belong to scheduled castes and were fully qualified to be appointed to various posts in "group-d category". All the petitioners were within the age group of 24 -26 years by the dates on which they submitted applications and they have also registered their names in the local employment exchange, their registration numbers being 4475 of 1990, 2031 of 1986, 8641 of 1988 and 17204 of 1985 respectively. All of them have come from rural areas and are belonging to very poor families having aged parents to look after them but all are unemployed waiting for the call from the employment exchanges and they have been in search of employment for the last several years. They have applied for the 'group-d posts' in the High Court of Karnataka soon after they came to know that the group-d posts were being filled up by direct recruitment. But, without considering their applications, the other candidates who applied for the posts were appointed. Though they made enquiries about the fate of their applications, they were not able to get any information from the establishment Section of the high court. Thereafter, they issued a legal notice dated 26-8-1993 to the 2nd respondent requesting for information about the fate of their applications, copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. respondent 2 sent a reply as per his letter dated 20-9-1993 vide Annexure-D , rejecting the information sought in the notice. Thereafter, they issued a legal notice dated 26-8-1993 to the 2nd respondent requesting for information about the fate of their applications, copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. respondent 2 sent a reply as per his letter dated 20-9-1993 vide Annexure-D , rejecting the information sought in the notice. A number of appointments were made from 1-1-1992, information relating to the candidates appointed and copies of appointment orders have not been furnished to the petitioners inspite of the above said legal notice issued. The appointments were made without consulting the employment exchange and without issuing any advertisement or without following any procedure prescribed. Respondent 1 has acted arbitrarily in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment along with respondents 3 to 126, who were similarly appointed. By virtue of article 229 of the Constitution of india, respondent 1 is the independent authority in all matters regarding the establishment of the High Court of karnataka. however, when the 1st respondent acts administratively under article 229 of the Constitution is subject to the writ jurisdiction of this court. the petitioners contended that recruitment to the various posts on the establishment of the High Court of Karnataka is regulated by the high court of Karnataka service (conditions of service and recruitment) rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') framed under article 229 of the Constitution and as per the said Rule it is obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent either to advertise the vacancies calling for applications or to get a lists of candidates from employment exchange for appointment. Since this procedure has not been followed by the 1st respondent while making appointments of respondents 3 to 126, the said appointments made are illegal. They further contended that the arbitrary action of respondent 1 resulted in denial of employment opportunities to the petitioners and is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. The petitioners have not been called for any interview and the required percentage of posts have not been filled up from any scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates. Without considering the applications of the petitioners and calling them for interview, respondents 1 and 2 appointed others that too without issuing notification. the orders of appointment are, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have not been called for any interview and the required percentage of posts have not been filled up from any scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates. Without considering the applications of the petitioners and calling them for interview, respondents 1 and 2 appointed others that too without issuing notification. the orders of appointment are, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners, therefore, approached this court seeking for the above mentioned reliefs in the present writ proceedings. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 have filed their objection statement with the following contentions: petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by them in these writ petitions. Petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 had submitted their applications requesting to be appointed as "peons" in the office of the high court of karnataka. But no such application was ever received from petitioner 5 by the high court. Applications from various persons are received in the office of the high court very frequently praying for appointment to "group-d posts". Mere submission of an application does not confer any right on such applicant for consideration of his case for appointment as a matter of right. Only the posts of peons, watchmen, sweepers and scavengers are to be filed by direct recruitment by selection and by appointment on deputation by other high courts. Rule 7 of the rules provides that recruitment to a post or class of posts shall be made by the hon'ble chief Justice as enumerated in schedule iii to the said rules; provided that for the purpose of direct recruitment to various categories of posts in the establishment of high court in accordance with these rules, reservation shall be made for candidates belonging to schedule castes and scheduled tribes to the extent of 15% and 3% respectively of the number of posts for which such recruitment is made, subject to such candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications and the minimum standard of suitability for the respective posts. It is further provided in the said rules that the Hon'ble chief Justice shall have power to amend the method of recruitment from time to time by a general or a special order. It is not correct to say that the appointments to group-d posts were made on a large scale. It is further provided in the said rules that the Hon'ble chief Justice shall have power to amend the method of recruitment from time to time by a general or a special order. It is not correct to say that the appointments to group-d posts were made on a large scale. As and when the vacancies arose, necessary action has been initiated to fill up these vacancies by appointing suitable candidates as per the rules. These respondents do not have the knowledge as to the personal qualifications of the petitioners, on whose behalf the applications have been received, as stated above. All appointments to "group-d" service in the office of respondents-1 and 2 are being made by the Hon'ble chief justice in exercise of the powers conferred under article 229 (1) of the Constitution of india. Consultation with the employment exchange in this regard does not arise. As and when the vacancies arose under group-d category, the same are being filled up by direct recruitment subject to such candidates possessing the prescribed qualification and the minimum standard of suitability for the respective posts, depending further on the exigencies of service. However, while so filling up the vacancies, reservation in respect of candidates belonging to S. C. and s. t. to the extent of 15% and 3% respectively will be ensured. since mere submission of an application by a person seeking appointment to the high court does not confer any right in him or her, the question of violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as claimed by the petitioners does not arise. These respondents have appointed in all 217 peons, 38 watchmen, 29 sweepers and 15 scavengers. in all 299 candidates belonging to group-d category. Out of the total strength, 45 vacancies are required to be filled up from among the scheduled castes candidates and 9 vacancies are required to be filled up from the candidates belonging to the scheduled tribes categories. But a total number of 65 candidates coming under the S. C. category and 10 candidates coming under the s. t. category have been appointed by direct recruitment to the above said group-d posts. As a matter of fact, this is quite in excess of the quota reserved in respect of the candidates coming under the S. C. and s. t. categories. As a matter of fact, this is quite in excess of the quota reserved in respect of the candidates coming under the S. C. and s. t. categories. Respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the above writ petitions; ( 4 ) ORIGINALLY, these writ petitions were filed impleading only respondents 1 to 9. Subsequently, after respondents 1 and 2 furnished particulars of the appointments made under group-d category from 1-1-1992 till the date of filing these writ petitions, the appointees are impleaded as respondents 10 to 126 and the petitioners prayed for quashing the appointment orders issued to respondents 3 to 126. ( 5 ) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Advocate general for respondents 1 and 2. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per Rule 7 of the rules which governs the "method of recruitment" to the various posts on the establishment of the High Court of karnataka, the posts of "peons", "watchmen", "sweepers" and "scavengers" are to be filled up by direct recruitment and so it is obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent to either advertise the vacancies calling for applications or to get a lists of candidates from the employment exchange and then select the candidates from among them for appointments. According to him, since the said procedure has not been followed by respondents 1 and 2 while making appointments of respondents 3 to 126, all the said appointments made are illegal and are liable to be quashed. It is further contended by him that since respondents 1 and 2 admitted in their counter that they have received the applications submitted by the petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 they should have been called for interview and their applications should have been considered along with the applications submitted by others. Since respondents 1 and 2 never claimed that the applications submitted by the petitioners 1 to 4 and 6 have also been considered along with the applications submitted by others, he contended that the said petitioners are entitled for the relief of the writ of mandamus prayed for by them for consideration of their applications and for appointing them to the posts if they are found eligible and suitable for the posts. It is further contended by him that as and when the vacancies arose for the group-d posts, 15% of the posts and 3% of the posts should have been reserved for S. C. and s. t. category respectively and without reserving the said percentage of posts to the categoes of S. C. and s. t. candidates persons belonging to other candidates were appointed in violation of the Provisions of Rule 7 of the rules and an this ground also the appointment orders issued in favour of respondents 3 to 126 on various dates are liable to be quashed. In reply to daese submissions, the learned Advocate general submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have clearly explained in the objection statement filed by whem that they have maintained the quota for reserved category of S. C. and s. t. among the total vacancies filled up and out of 299 posts filled up, 65 posts are given to the s. c. category and 10 are given to s. t. category. He, therefore, contended that the above said grievance made yb the petitioners that the required percentage of posts is not reserved for S. C. and s. t. category, is unfounded. He further contended that under the Provisions of article 229 of the Constitution of india, the Hon'ble chief Justice of the high court is given exclusive and independent powers in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of the high court and so there is no obligation on his part to consult the employment exchange in the matter of the said appointments. It is further contended by him that except the guidelines laid down in Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka service (conditions of service and recuitment) rules, 1973, respondent 1 is not bound by any other general undre and recruitment rules applicable to the appointments of other government servants while exercising his powers under article 229 (1) of the Constitution of india. Since no particular procedure has been prescribed under Rule 7 of the rules, he contended that there is no in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the posts filled up on various dates should have been notified calling for applications to fill up the posts. Since no particular procedure has been prescribed under Rule 7 of the rules, he contended that there is no in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the posts filled up on various dates should have been notified calling for applications to fill up the posts. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions urged on both sides, i find it necessary to refer to the Provisions of article 229 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka service (conditions of service and recruitment) rules, 1973. Article 229 of the Constitution is extracted below. "officers and servants and the expenses of high courts. (1) appointments of officers and servants of a high court shall be made by the chief Justice of the court or such other judge or officer of the court as he may direct: provided that the government of the state may by Rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the Rule no person not already attached to the court shall be appointed to any office connected with the court save after consultation with the state public service commission. (2) subject to the Provisions of any law made by the legislature of the state, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a high court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the chief Justice of the court or by some other judge or officer of the court authorised by the chief Justice to make rules for the purpose: provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the governor of the state". Rule 7 is extracted as herein. "method of recruitment. Recruitment to a post or class of posts shall be made by the chief Justice as enumerated in schedule iii to these rules: provided that for the purpose of direct recruitment to various categories of posts in the establishment of the high court in accordance with these rules, reservations shall be made for candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to the extent of 15% and 3% respectively of the number of posts for which such recruitment is made, subject to such candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications and the minimum standard of suitability for the respective posts. promotion to post carrying a minimum pay upto and inclusive of Rs. 900 in 1976 scales or their equivalent in 1982 scales shall be subject to the same terms and conditions in the matter of reservations in favour of officials belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as prescribed in g. o. No. Dpar 29 sbc 77, dated 27th april, 1978 as modified by g. o. No. Dpar 22 sbc 79, dated 30th august, 1979 and such number of promotional vacancies arising after the commencement of this Rule as is equal to the number of vacancies which should have been reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, after 27th april, 1978 and before the commencement of these rules under the said two orders, shall be filled by promotion of candidates belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes as the case may be: provided further that for the purpose of direct recruitment to various categories of posts in the establishment of the high court in accordance with these rules, reservation shall also be made for candidates belonging to other backward classes as per the Provisions of the Karnataka civil services (general recruitment) rules, 1977: provided further that the chief Justice shall have powers to amend the method of recruitment from time to time by a general or special order: provided further that the reservation in respect of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, prescribed in the above said two government orders, shall cease in respect of any cadre, where 15% and 3% of the posts have been occupied by persons coming under scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categories respectively. However, posts occupied by scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates on becoming vacant, shall be filled up from the respective categories". schedule iii si. No. 35 cadre peons, watchmen, sweepers and scavengers. method of recruitment: by direct recruitment by selection of a person who has passed at least 4th standard and by appointment on deputation from other high courts. note. The candidates for appointment by direct recruitment must have attained the age of 18 years but not attained the age of. (a) 38 years in the case of a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes; (b) 33 years in the case of any other person. note. The candidates for appointment by direct recruitment must have attained the age of 18 years but not attained the age of. (a) 38 years in the case of a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes; (b) 33 years in the case of any other person. it is, therefore, clear from the above Provisions that the appointments of "group-d" posts are to be made by respondent 1 in exercise of the powers conferred under article 229 (1) of the Constitution of india, as per the guidelines given in Rule 7 of the said rules. It is made clear in Rule 7 that group-d posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment subject to the condition that reservation shall be made to the candidates belonging to S. C. and s. t. to the extent of 15% and 3% respectively for the number of posts for which such recruitment is made subject to such candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications and minimum standard of suitability for the respective posts. ( 8 ) IT is also not disputed that during the relevant years 1992, 1993 and 1994, respondent 1 has not amended the method of recruitment by any general or special order. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the procedure adopted for filling up of group-d posts during the above said years, the vacancies were being filled up by 1st respondent as and when they arose on the basis of the application submitted by eligible candidates having the prescribed minimum qualification. respondents 1 and 2 have also disclosed in their reply that during the above said relevant years, no notifications have been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against the said vacancies. Thus, it is clear that as and when vacancies arose under group-d category, the same are being filled up by direct recruitment from among those who applied for the posts subject to such candidates possessing the prescribed qualification and the minimum standard of suitability for the respective posts, depending further on the exigencies of service. So, the only question to be considered now is "whether the present petitioners have applied for the posts as and when the vacancies arose and filled up by respondent 1?. It is seen from the copies of the applications submitted by the petitioners marked as annexures-b to b-5 that petitioner 1-ms. So, the only question to be considered now is "whether the present petitioners have applied for the posts as and when the vacancies arose and filled up by respondent 1?. It is seen from the copies of the applications submitted by the petitioners marked as annexures-b to b-5 that petitioner 1-ms. Basamma submitted an application-copy of Annexure-B on 30-7-1993, petitioner 2-l. n. kumara submitted an application-copy of annexure-b1 on 30-7-1993, petitioner 3-n. Venkateshmurthy submitted an application-copy of annexure-b2 on 22-8-1992, petitioner 4-k. Shivanna submitted an application-copy of annexure-b3 on 6-8- 1993, petitioner 5-chikkanarasimhaiah submitted an application-copy of annexure-b4 on 12-5-1993 and petitioner 6-ambika submitted an application-copy of annexure-b5 on 6-8-1993 as per the dates found on the seal of the High Court of Karnataka put on them". Though respondents 1 and 2 contended that they have not received the application submitted by chikkanarasimhaiah petitioner 5, xerox copy of the said application annexure-b4 produced by him bears the seal of the high court and the signature of the person, who received the same is found on the seal. So, it is quite possible that petitioner 5 must have also submitted his application on 12-5-1993. On perusal of the appointment orders issued in favour of respondents 3 to 126, it is found that no appointments were made by respondent 1 in the months of may 1993 or July 1993. Candidates appearing in the list furnished by respondents, si. Nos. 64 to 72 were appointed in the month of June 1993 on the dates 16-6-1993 and 24-6-1993. Candidate at si. No. 73 was appointed on 25-8-1993. Petitioner 6- ambika has submitted her application on 6-8-1993. After the said date only one appointment was made on 25-8-1993 in that month which is shown at si. No. 73. But, all the said appointees belong to communities other than the S. C. and s. t. similarly, after petitioner 3-n. venkateshamurthy applied for the post of peon on 22-8-1992 only one person was appointed on 29-8-1992 shown at si. No. 30 for the post of sweeper and he belongs to "gowda community". It is also to be mentioned here that petitioner 2 has not applied for the post of "sweeper", but he applied for the post of "peon". So, petitioner 3 cannot make any grievance in respect of the said appointment made on 29-8-1992 for the post of a "sweeper" for which he has not applied. It is also to be mentioned here that petitioner 2 has not applied for the post of "sweeper", but he applied for the post of "peon". So, petitioner 3 cannot make any grievance in respect of the said appointment made on 29-8-1992 for the post of a "sweeper" for which he has not applied. Since it is also found that the appointments made on the above referred dates are of the persons belonging to other communities, it is clear that the vacancies were not there in S. C. and s. t. category. It is for the reason, the petitioners who applied for the post of "peon" in the months of may, july and August 1993 were not called for interview and their applications for the appointment of peons were not considered. In respect of the appointments made long subsequent to the months of June and august, 1993 which were made in the year 1994, the petitioners are not entitled to contend that their applications should have been considered when they have not submitted their applications as and when the said vacancies arose. Similarly, the petitioner 3, who applied for the post of peon on 22-8-1992 is not entitled to contend that his application should have been considered for the post filled up in the months of November and December 1992 and thereafter, when he has not applied for the posts as and when vacancies arose during those months. Unless, it is shown by the petitioners that they have submitted their applications as and when the vacancies arose and that their applications were not considered to fill up the vacancies, they are not entitled to any relief for consideration of the applications submitted by them. Similarly, unless it is shown by the petitioners that the vacancies which arose at the time when they submitted their applications are of the reserved category of scheduled castes to which they belong, they are not entitled to contend that their applications should have been considered for the posts filled up from other categories. Similarly, unless it is shown by the petitioners that the vacancies which arose at the time when they submitted their applications are of the reserved category of scheduled castes to which they belong, they are not entitled to contend that their applications should have been considered for the posts filled up from other categories. The further contention of the petitioners that the required number of posts were not reserved for S. C. and s. t. category at the time when the above vacancies were filled up also cannot be accepted, as there is nothing on record to show that during the relevant months and year, in which they applied for the posts, any vacancies were available in the category of S. C. and s. t. on the other hand, respondents 1 and 2 have clearly explained in their counter affidavit that they have filled up the required number of posts under the reserved category of S. C. and s. t. by giving the figures as 65 candidates appointed under S. C. category and 10 candidates appointed under s. t. category out of 299 posts filled up. Thus, i find that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the validity of the appointments made by respondent 1 in favour of respondents 3 to 126 on various dates. Further, as it is found that all the appointments were made by respondent 1 to the "group-d posts" as and when vacancies arose in exercise of the powers conferred under article 229 of the Constitution of India and by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the high court of Karnataka service (conditions of service and recruitment) rules, 1973, i find no grounds to quash the said appointments made or to issue any direction by way of writ of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for the posts of "peons". ( 10 ) IN the result, all these writ petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .