ORDER 1.These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who have been denied their claim for reliefs they were entitled to on the basis ofdecision of this Court in the matter Sreedhara S. v. State of Karnataka. The decision of this Court, so relied upon by the writ petitioners, was in respect of an order passed by the High Court of Kamataka setting at naught an interim order which had been passed by the High Court during the pendency of the appeals before it. 2. The decision of the Karnataka High Court arose out of the writ petitions which had been filed challenging Rule 3(B) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1976 by which weightage was granted in favour ofrural candidate. The writ petitions were allowed and the rule was struck down as being unconstitutional by the learned Single Judge. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was delivered on 11-11-1998. While allowing the writ petitions the Single Judge directed that those appointments which had already been made in accordance with the impugned rule would not be disturbed. 3. The State Government appealed from the decision of the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the Division Bench passed an interim order dated 4-12-1998 staying the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge subject to the following: (1) selections/appointments made thereafter would be subject to the decision in the appeal, (2) the appointing authority before giving the order of appointment tocandidate having rural weightage was required to obtain an undertaking from the candidate that the appointment given would be subject to the decision in these proceedings pending before the High Court, and (3) that the candidate would have no right to the post in the event the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appointments were made in compliance with the interim order of the appellate court. All appointees gave undertakings as specified in the interim order and were perfectly aware that their appointments were subject to the decision in the pending appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26-11-1999. All appointees gave undertakings as specified in the interim order and were perfectly aware that their appointments were subject to the decision in the pending appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26-11-1999. However, while affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge that Rule 3(B) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1976 was ultra wires, the Division Bench directed that those persons who had been appointed during the pendency of the appeal till the date of the Division Benchs decision, namely 26-11-1999, on the basis of their rural weightage, would continue in service. 5. Some of the candidates who had been superseded by the appointees with rural weightage, approached this Court challenging the confirmation of the order passed by the Division Bench insofar as it allowed the appointees with rural weightage whose appointments were subject to the outcome of the appeal, to continue in service. This Court disposed of the appeals including appeal CA No. 7105 of 2001 on ll-1O-200P holding that the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the appointees with rural weightage to continue in service despite their having been appointed only pursuant to the interim order passed by the Division Bench were unsustainable in law. Those directions of the Division Bench of the High Court in relation to appointments made during the pendency of the appeal and also the conditional selections made on the basis of rural weightage, were accordingly set aside. This Court, however, made it clear that if any of these appointees were otherwise entitled to be appointed even after excludingthe weightage given under Rule 3(B), the judgment of this Court would not operate to debar them from being appointed. In view of this decision, WP (C) No. 365 of 1999 was dismissed as withdrawn. 6. On 5-11-2001, the High Court of Karnataka after having considered this Courts decision dated 11-10-20011 issuednotification showinglist of Civil Judges (Junior Division) who had been appointed after giving the benefit of rural weightage marks and who after rural weightage marks were excluded did not qualify for selection and appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). The notification also stated that these Civil Judges (Junior Division) whose names were so listed were relieved from service and they were directed to hand over the charge of their present post to the officers mentioned against their names. The notification also stated that these Civil Judges (Junior Division) whose names were so listed were relieved from service and they were directed to hand over the charge of their present post to the officers mentioned against their names. In the list of officers given in the notification dated 5-11-2001 (hereafter referred to as the "first notification"), there are 26 officers mentioned. 7. Several interlocutory applications and review applications were filed by the persons who had been appointed pursuant to the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as by the State Government. The interlocutory applications as well as the review applications were dismissed by this Court on 26-11-2001 t. After recording that the Court was not inclined to entertain any of the applications so filed, the Court specifically directed that: (SCC p. 170, paras 1-2) "The review petitions as well as IAs are dismissed. If any person not beingparty to the same is aggrieved by any order of this Government pursuant to our judgment, it would befresh cause of action which he can assail in an appropriate forum. (In review petitions) Needless to mention, judgment of this Court would bind the parties in the proceedings." 8. This order was not intended to reopen the issue which had been decided by this Court on 11-1O-200JI. The "right" of the review petitioners was to approach the Court after the Government issued an order pursuant to the decision dated 11-10-200JI if the review petitioners were otherwise aggrieved by the same. Naturally, no grievance could be ventilated on the basis of the issues which had been concluded on 11-10-20011. The rule granting rural weightage had been struck down and this Court had come to the conclusion that only those appointments which were made up to the date of the learned Single Judges decision would be continued and no further appointments on the basis of Rule 3(B) would be considered to have been validly made. 9. However, appearing to treat the entire issue at large again the High Court issuednotification on 6-2-2002 (hereafter referred to as "the second notification") by which the High Court set aside the first notification observing, that the officers who had been removed by the first notification were reinstated by virtue of this Courts clarification dated 26-11-200 It. 9. However, appearing to treat the entire issue at large again the High Court issuednotification on 6-2-2002 (hereafter referred to as "the second notification") by which the High Court set aside the first notification observing, that the officers who had been removed by the first notification were reinstated by virtue of this Courts clarification dated 26-11-200 It. Therefore, the first notification which had been issued pursuant to thisCourts decision dated ll-lO-20011 on the substantive appeal, was withdrawn on the basis of the "clarification" dated 26-11-2001. 10. We have already made it clear that the High Courts reading of theclarification was entirely incorrect. Indeed, it is not in dispute that each of the persons who have got the benefit of the second notification was appointedduring the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and all of them had given undertakings in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court. They, therefore, knew that their appointments were precarious and subject to the outcome of the appeal. The decision in the appeal having gone against them, they are bound by the undertaking given to the Court and cannot now contend otherwise. 11. The writ petitioners are those who were successful in the examinations which were held for the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 1998. In the merit list, the four writ petitioners have been shown as against Serial Nos. 56, 65, 77 and 81. 12. According to the writ petitioners the persons whose names were listed in the first and second notifications had no right to continue in service as they were disqualified from being appointed as Civil Judges by virtue of the order of this Court dated 11-lO-2001. Therefore, the writ petitioners were entitled to be considered for appointment. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court has stated that the High Court has acted bona fide onmistaken interpretation of the order dated 26-11-2001passed by this Court on the review petitions. It is stated that in any event this Court may consider continuing "those appointees who were appointed in the interim period during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court" as they had already put in several years of service and there isdearth of judicial officers in the State. It is stated that in any event this Court may consider continuing "those appointees who were appointed in the interim period during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court" as they had already put in several years of service and there isdearth of judicial officers in the State. As far as the State Government is concerned, it is submitted that they had also proceeded on the basis ofmisinterpretation of the order dated 26-11-2001. However, the submission on behalf of the State Government is that the order dated 26-11- 2001should be recalled and the review applications be determined on merits. As far as the 26 interim appointees are concerned they have submitted that they should be allowed to continue in service because they had in fact rendered service overperiod of time; that all of them were practising as advocate when they were selected, and that if they are now deprived of their position they would lose all, neither having the benefit of seniority in profession nor the benefit of service in the judicial service. It is further submitted that although some of them had taken the examinations pursuant tothe advertisement. issued subsequent to the decision of this Court dated 11-lO-20011 none of them had appeared in the interview by virtue of this Courts order dated 26-11-2001 t because the condition for appearing at the interview was that they would have to resign from service and thereafter be appointed in which event they would have lost about three years of service. It is further submitted that it would be inequitable to call upon them to take the examination afresh at this stage apart from the fact that many of them have crossed the age-limit. It is, therefore, submitted that they should be continued in service and even if they are asked to take interviews in respect of the examinations held in 2002, they should be given the benefit of the years of service they have put in and granted seniority on that basis. According to these respondents, in all other services the different departments had not taken steps pursuant to the decision of this Court, namely, to weed out those who have been treated as qualified only on the basis of rural weightage and who had been appointed after the decision of the learned Single Judge. According to these respondents, in all other services the different departments had not taken steps pursuant to the decision of this Court, namely, to weed out those who have been treated as qualified only on the basis of rural weightage and who had been appointed after the decision of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that, therefore the decision of this Court would operate indiscriminatory manner if it were enforced only with regard to the judicial service. 14. We are unable to accede to the submissions of the State Government, the High Court and the "interim appointees". The decision of this Court rendered on 11-10-20011 cannot be rendered nugatory by allowing the very persons in respect of whose appointment this Court has held that the Division Bench should not have allowed them to continue in service. If the subsequent clarification has been misunderstood by the High Court and the State, we can only say that it was unfortunate and surprising as it could not reasonably be accepted that onreview application which was being dismissed the Court had in fact allowed the review and redecided the matter indiametrically opposite manner. Where the rule has been declared to be unconstitutional the consequences must apply to all the services. The rule could not be taken to be good in part and bad in part. Therefore, only to the extent that appointments had been specifically and expressly protected by this Court the striking down of the rule would operate against all persons who were otherwise not so protected. The question of continuing the "interim appointees" in service, therefore, does not arise. The second notification is therefore quashed. 15. However, as far as the submission of the private respondents and other "interim appointees" is concerned, on equitable considerations we allow them to take the interview in respect of the examination held in 2002. It is made clear that this Court is acting only on the basis of the statement made by these respondents that they had qualified in the written examination and were entitled to be called for interviews. We have not decided that issue asfinding of fact. It is made clear that this Court is acting only on the basis of the statement made by these respondents that they had qualified in the written examination and were entitled to be called for interviews. We have not decided that issue asfinding of fact. If these preconditions are prevailing, namely, that the written examination has been taken in 2002 and that these respondents have passed the written examination and are entitled to be called for interview, they shall be called for interview by the authority concerned withinperiod of four weeks from date. If any of these respondents are successful asresult of this,they shall be treated as having been appointed from the date of the issuance of their fresh appointment letter. Their past service will not be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting them seniority in any fashion whatsoever. Having regard to the passage of time and in the circumstances of the case, we also direct that the competent authority will allow those respondents who have crossed the age-limit to appear at the interview for theaforesaid purpose. If any of these respondents and other "interim appointees" had not sat in the examination during any particular year, it is made clear that they can also sit in the next examination to be held even if they have crossed the age-limit. 16. As far as the other services are concerned, if the State has notcomplied with the Courts order dated 11-10-20011 they have done so at their peril. If indeed what the writ petitioners in the writ petitions filed in respect of the police service have said is correct, the State Government is directed to take immediate action to rectify this situation and comply with this Courts direction as contained in the order dated 11-10-200 II withinperiod of eight weeks from date. This only leaves the relief that can be granted to the writ petitioners. As far as they are concerned, if their case for appointment had not been considered only because otherwise .unqualified candidates had been appointed by virtue ofRule3(B) andif asresult of the decision of this Court 1l - 1O-2001 any vacancies have been created in the year in which these writ petitioners" had successfully qualified and been named in the merit list, they shall, against the vacancies so created, be entitled to be appointed in their turn and in accordance with the merit list. This exercise shall also be carried out withinperiod of eight weeks from the date. However, we make it clear that if any of the writ petitioners is so appointed his/her appointment will be taken (sic take effect) from the date of the issuance of the order of the appointment. 17. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [CITED ORDER]