Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was working as a Reader in Sessions Division Karnal, petitioner No.2 was working in Sessions Division Narnaul while petitioner No.3 was working in Sessions Division Faridabad. They were selected and appointed as Superintendents in the offices of District and Sessions Judges in Sessions Divisions Ambala, Kurukshetra and Bhiwani respectively. However, one Lakhi Ram, Reader of the Court of Additional District and Sessions, Faridabad filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15489 of 2004 challenging the said appointments of the petitioners as Superintendents on the plea that he has not been considered although he was eligible for being considered for the post of Superintendent. Another writ petition was also filed on the same facts and for the same relief. The said writ petition was accepted by an Hon ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.8.2005. The following operative order was passed: We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order, Annexure P-2, qua respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and direct respondent No. 1 to fill the posts in question as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 7. We also make it clear that this judgment will not operate retrospectively and all the selections made earlier, would not be affected by the observations made above. In compliance with the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, the petitioners were reverted by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2006. The said order dated 27.1.2006 is being impugned by filing the present writ petition. 2. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the selection and appointment of the petitioners is not affected by the aforesaid judgment dated 30.8.2005. In support of his submission, our attention was drawn to the following observations by the Hon ble Division Bench: We also make it clear that this judgment will not operate retrospectively and all the selections made earlier, would not be affected by the observations made above. 3. This submission has been considered by us, but we are not inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that these observations relate to selection and appointments of Superintendents made prior to the one in dispute i.e. selections and appointments of the petitioners which was subject matter of litigation before the Hon ble Division Bench. In the operative part of the judgment, their Lordships have specifically stated that the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed qua respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. the present petitioners. Therefore, this argument is not available to the petitioners that this judgment dated 30.8.2005 did not affect them. It actually affected them and their selection as Superintendents and their appointments in separate Sessions Divisions were set aside. 4. The next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the names of all the persons eligible were considered by all the District and Sessions Judges before forwarding the names of the petitioners and of others to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. This submission appears to be mis-conceived. Reference, for that purpose, can be made to the letter dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P. 1) sent by this Court to all the District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana for recommending the name of only one official from amongst eligible employees from each Sessions Division. Therefore, it cannot be held that the names of all the eligible employees were considered by the District and Sessions Judge concerned or if only thereafter the name of one candidate was forwarded by the concerned District and Sessions Judge to this Court. It only appears that out of all the eligible employees, the name of only one was forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge without considering the names of all other eligible candidates. 5. Otherwise also, consideration by the District and Sessions Judge for the purpose of recommending the names of one out of all the eligible candidates does not serve the purpose as the selection and appointment of an eligible candidate as Superintendent of a Sessions Court is to be made by the High Court and not by the District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, consideration of the names of eligible candidates by the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned Sessions Division did not satisfy the legal requirements of relevant Rules. The selection and appointment has to be made by the High Court as it is a State cadre. Hence, the District and Sessions Judge does not have any role to play in the selection and appointment of Superintendents except to forward names of eligible candidates to High Court under relevant rules. The selection and appointment has to be made by the High Court as it is a State cadre. Hence, the District and Sessions Judge does not have any role to play in the selection and appointment of Superintendents except to forward names of eligible candidates to High Court under relevant rules. We are therefore of a certain opinion that there is no illegality in order of 27.1.2006 (Ann. P5) passed by the respondent as it has been passed only in competency with the judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP 15489 of 2004. There is no merit in present writ petition and same is dismissed.