Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. All the Writ Petitions relate to appointment in the judicial service. In some of the cases, while prayer has been made to direct the respondents to fill up the posts by direct recruitment, in the other cases, prayer has been made to quash certain appointments. All the Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. W.P.Nos.14499, 9844, 9520 and 13526 of 2009 relate to appointment to the post of District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service. W.P.Nos.14598 and 17665 of 2009 relate to appointment to the post of District Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. 2. In W.P.No.14499 of 2009, the petitioner, a practising lawyer, has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto, challenging the authority of the fifth respondent-Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and the sixth respondent-Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar, to hold the post of District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service on ad-hoc basis, after expiry of the mandatory period of one year. 3. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.9844 and 9520 of 2009 prayed to make appointment to Puducherry Judicial Service in terms of the amended Rules. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.13526 of 2009 has challenged the order dated 6. 2009 issued by the Law Department of the Government of Puducherry, whereby the fifth respondent-C.Roubavady and the sixth respondent-R. Margaret Roasaline have been promoted on temporary and ad-hoc basis as District Judge (Entry Level) in Puducherry Judicial Service. 5. The petitioner-P. Murugan in W.P.No.14598 of 2009 has prayed for a direction to the respondents to make appointment to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) by direct recruitment from eligible candidates from the Bar against 25% quota in terms of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, published in the Gazette on 11. 2007. 6. In W.P.No.17665 of 2009, the very same petitioner P. Murugan has challenged the appointment of respondents 5 to 24 therein, made by G.O.(D).No.128, dated 27. 2009, whereby those officers have been appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. 7. 2007. 6. In W.P.No.17665 of 2009, the very same petitioner P. Murugan has challenged the appointment of respondents 5 to 24 therein, made by G.O.(D).No.128, dated 27. 2009, whereby those officers have been appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. 7. In all the cases, the general allegation made is that the respondents-authorities are not making the appointments in terms of the relevant Rules framed by the respective States, namely Union Territory of Puducherry and the State of Tamil Nadu and are being made in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "All India Judges Assn. Vs. Union of India" reported in 2002 (4) SCC 247 . In the said case, the Supreme Court of India made a dictum for appointment of District Judges as 50% by promotion from amongst Civil Judges (Senior Division), 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited Competitive Examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) and 25% of the post by direct recruitment from the Bar members. 8. It is also alleged that the respondents-authorities all the time are making ad-hoc appointments, both in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service and the Union Territory of Puducherry, without resorting to regular appointment in terms of the Rules and the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. 9. It is argued in common that the petitioners who are Advocates, are eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge and they are aspiring for such post, but the same is being deprived by appointment of the District Judge on ad-hoc basis for years together, which is arbitrary and against law. 10. To decide the question as to whether the (ad-hoc) appointments of the concerned respondents in the Writ Petitions were made in accordance with law and to find out as to against which quota they were appointed, i.e. against 50% quota of promotees or against 25% quota of Civil Judges (Senior Division) selected pursuant to a limited Competitive Examination or against 25% quota of direct recruitment, this Court called for the original records of those who were appointed in the recent past. In the Union Territory of Puducherry or the State of Tami Nadu, particularly, with respect to those who have been impleaded as party-respondents in different Writ Petitions, records have been produced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court, Madras. The Rules have also been placed. 11. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court, Madras, as also the learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Puducherry and the State of Tamil Nadu, while supporting the appointments of the respective respondents in the Writ Petitions, submitted that in some of the cases, adhoc appointments have been made because of pendency of one or other case, which has already been disposed of. In fact, in all the cases, procedures for regular appointment/promotion have been followed, but in the orders of appointment, it has been shown as "ad-hoc", as the Writ Petitions were pending at one or other stage against such appointment/promotion. It is further submitted that some ad-hoc arrangement has been made by promoting Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of District Judge on ad-hoc basis, in view of the administrative exigency, as no Court can be kept vacant for years together. It is also pointed out that steps have been taken to fill up the vacant post of District Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service in accordance with the Rules. 12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 13. Pondicherry Judicial Service: It appears that the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 came into force only on 4. 2008, whereby, for the first time, the quota for promotees were reduced to 50% and new quota for the Civil Judges (Senior Division) by selection/Special Examination has been carved out. The direct recruits have been provided with 25% of the quota of the cadre post. Prior to the said Rules, 2008, 75% of the post used to be filled up by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. The direct recruits have been provided with 25% of the quota of the cadre post. Prior to the said Rules, 2008, 75% of the post used to be filled up by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. The cadre strength of the District Judges in the Puducherry Judicial Service and Excadre post, is as follows: .(i) Cadre Strength of District Judges: 4 posts .(a) As per Old Rules: .(i) By promotion : 3 posts .(ii) By direct recruitment : 1 post .(b) As per New Rules: .(i) By promotion : 2 posts .(ii) By direct recruitment: 1 post (iii) By selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division): 1 post (ii) By Ex-cadre strength : 2 posts Post of Member Secretary in the Union Territory of Puducherry Legal Services Authority and the post of Judge, Family Court. These posts can be occupied on deputation by any person and no quota can be claimed by direct recruits or Civil Judges (Senior Division) by selection. It appears that already, the following six persons have been appointed/promoted and working as District Judges in the Puducherry Judicial Service: .(i) District Judge against direct recruitment quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: TABLE .(ii) District Judge against promotion quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: TABLE (iii) District Judge appointed by promotion in view of additional strength of Excadre post: TABLE Mr. Uthirapathy: District Judge by direct recruitment: The High Court, by Notification No.86/2001, dated 8. 2001, invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up one post of District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service by direct recruitment, from the Bar. Pursuant to the said Notification, number of candidates applied and the Selection Committee of the High Court, interviewed the eligible candidates and after assessing the merits, the name of K. Uthirapathy was recommended for regular appointment as District Judge by direct recruitment in the Puducherry Judicial Service, by D.O.Lr.No.79/1999, dated 212. 2001. The Original Application of K. Uthirapathy was also forwarded and the Union Territory of Puducherry was requested to appoint Mr. K. Uthirapathy as District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service, by direct recruitment. However, for the reasons best known to the Union Territory of Puducherry, while the Office Order was issued from the Law Department of the Government of Puducherry, vide No.48-12/2001-LD(PJS), dated 13. 2002, the following nature of appointment was shown: "Thiru. K. Uthirapathy as District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service, by direct recruitment. However, for the reasons best known to the Union Territory of Puducherry, while the Office Order was issued from the Law Department of the Government of Puducherry, vide No.48-12/2001-LD(PJS), dated 13. 2002, the following nature of appointment was shown: "Thiru. K. Uthirapathy, Advocate is hereby appointed as District Judge on purely temporary and adhoc basis in the Pondicherry Judicial Service with effect from the date of his assumption of charge as District Judge. 2. He will draw pay in the scale of pay of Rs.16400-450-20000, plus other allowances as admissible under the rules in force." Learned counsel for the respondent-Union Territory of Puducherry submitted that at the time of appointment of Mr. K. Uthirapathy, one Sugumaran, son of Govindaraju, Coordinator, Federation for Peoples Rights, Puducherry, made certain allegations and the matter was referred to the Registrar General of the High Court, on 22. 2002, and as a fact finding enquiry was under consideration, in the order of appointment, the nature of appointment of the said K. Uthirapathy was shown as temporary and ad-hoc basis. However, it is accepted that on the said complaint, after enquiry, finally, nothing was found against K. Uthirapathy and he is still continuing in the service. Pursuant to the order of appointment, K. Uthirapathy joined the post in March 2002 and still continuing in the Puducherry Judicial Service for more than 7-1/2 years. In view of the aforesaid facts, as Mr. K. Uthirapathy was appointed after following all the procedures, i.e. calling for applications from the eligible candidates, interview and selection, and on the recommendation of the High Court, as a direct recruit, and is continuing for more than 7-1/2 years, we hold that Mr. K. Uthirapathy was entitled for regular and substantive appointment. Mr. D. Ramabathiran: District Judge appointed by promotion against the promotee quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: From the records, it appears that the case of Mr. D. Ramabathiran was considered for regular promotion to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Puducherry Judicial Service. The matter was considered by the Administrative Committee, which on consideration of the record of service, recommended him for regular promotion. Thereafter, the Registrar General, by D.O.Lr.No.71/2004-Con.B2, dated 211. 2004, requested the Union Territory of Puducherry to promote Mr. D. Ramabathiran was considered for regular promotion to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Puducherry Judicial Service. The matter was considered by the Administrative Committee, which on consideration of the record of service, recommended him for regular promotion. Thereafter, the Registrar General, by D.O.Lr.No.71/2004-Con.B2, dated 211. 2004, requested the Union Territory of Puducherry to promote Mr. D. Ramabathiran, Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Puducherry Judicial Service on regular basis, as evident from the said letter and quoted hereunder: "I am to state that High Court considered the cases of Civil Judges (Senior Division) of Pondicherry Judicial Service for promotion to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) and ordered to promote Thiru. D. Ramabathiran, Senior most Civil Judge (Senior Division), now functioning on deputation as Director of Prosecution, Pondicherry to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Pondicherry Judicial Service. I am, therefore, to request that necessary orders of the appointing authority promoting Thiru. D. Ramabathiran, Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Pondicherry Judicial Service now functioning on deputation as Director of Prosecution, Pondicherry as District Judge (Entry Level) in the said service may be obtained and communicated urgently." However, from the Office Order of promotion, issued by the Government of Puducherry, Law Department, vide No.3203/2004-LD(PJS), dated 12. 2004, it is evident that the Government of Puducherry issued the order of promotion in respect of Mr. D. Ramabathiran, as District Judge, purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis, for the reasons best known to it. Since 12. 2004, the Officer is continuing in the service. From the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that the case of Mr. D. Ramabathiran was considered for promotion on regular basis and he is continuing for long period and was in fact, entitled for regular promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on substantive basis. Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar: District Judges appointed by promotion against the quota in the Puducherry Judicial Service: From the records, it appears that the cases of Smt. C. Roubavady, Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline, P. Nallathambi, K. Dakshinamoorthy, Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar and Mr. K. Arul, were considered by the Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 10. 2007, for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Puducherry Judicial Service. E.M.K. Siddharthar and Mr. K. Arul, were considered by the Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 10. 2007, for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Puducherry Judicial Service. The Selection Committee, on consideration of the merit-cum-seniority, suitability, service records and other records, made the following recommendation in the order of merit/preference: .(i) Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy .(ii) Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar (iii) Smt. C. Roubavady .(iv) Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline .(v) Mr. P. Nallathambi .(vi) Mr. K. Arul The aforesaid recommendation having been accepted by the Administrative Side of this Court, their names were forwarded to the Government of Puducherry, which issued Office Order in No.48-12/PSJ/2007-LD, 211. 2007, promoting Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar, as District Judges (Entry Level), but curiously, such order of promotion has been issued purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis and in the said order dated 211. 2007, it has also been mentioned that such temporary ad-hoc promotion has been given in view of the pendency of the cases in W.P.Nos.33524 and 35164 of 2007, in which their appointments were also questioned. From the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar were recommended for promotion on regular basis against promotee quota of the Puducherry Judicial Service, but in view of the pendency of the cases, the nature of promotion has been shown as temporary and ad-hoc basis. The aforesaid Writ Petition No.33524 of 2007 (M. Enthil Kumar Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Lt. Governor, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry) and Writ Petition No.35164 of 2007 (J. Sivaganesh Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Lt. Governor, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry), were filed to appoint the District Judges in terms of the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules and as per the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of "All India Judges Assn. Vs. Union of India" reported in 2002 (4) SCC 247 . In the said W.P.No.35164 of 2007, Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy, Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar, Smt. C. Roubavady, Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline and Mr. K. Arul were impleaded as respondents 5 to 9 respectively. One or other interim order was passed in those Writ Petitions from time to time. Both the said Writ Petitions were finally heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, by a common order, dated 2. 2008. K. Arul were impleaded as respondents 5 to 9 respectively. One or other interim order was passed in those Writ Petitions from time to time. Both the said Writ Petitions were finally heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, by a common order, dated 2. 2008. Having noticed all the facts and the submissions which were made similar to the present Writ Petitions, the Division Bench made the following observations: "23. While considering the question of stay, we had modified the interim order of stay and had permitted Respondents 5 & 6 to join the post without prejudice to the contentions raised in the writ petitions. We find that as per the direction of the Supreme Court, upto three persons can be promoted through the conventional method of promotion, namely the merit-cum-seniority and only one such person has been promoted earlier. Accordingly, even if the rules are modified, obviously there is scope for promoting two more on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Accordingly, the Respondents 5 & 6 are allowed to continue. This, however, is without prejudice to the contentions, if any, to be raised by any of the other respondents relating to process of the selection itself. In other words, if any of the Sub Judge has any grievance that he should have been selected ahead of the Respondents 5 & 6, it would be open to such Sub Judge to raise such question before the appropriate forum and such question is not decided by us." In view of the aforesaid order dated 2. 2008 passed in W.P.Nos.33524 and 35164 of 2007, the Court having permitted Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar, the respondents 5 and 6 respectively in W.P.No.35164 of 2007, to continue and their selection having been made on regular basis for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level), we are of the view that their promotion should be treated to be regular in nature for all purposes and if so required, a direction can be issued to the Union Territory of Puducherry to issue appropriate order in this regard. From the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the four posts of the Puducherry Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level), have been rightly filled up, one, by direct recruitment and three, by promotion, as shown hereunder: TABLE All their appointments and promotions having been made prior to the promulgation of the New Rules, namely The Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008, which came into force from 4. 2008, we are of the view that no post can be allocated for the present to be filled up from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) by selection till the vacancy arises in the cadre of the District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service. Ex-cadre post in the Puducherry Judicial Service: From the records, it would be evident that the Selection Committee, by proceedings dated 10. 2007, also considered the case of Smt. C. Roubavady and Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline, along with others, for promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level), on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, suitability, service records and other records. Their names were recommended and placed at Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of the merit list. As against the existing two vacancies of the District Judge in the Puducherry Judicial Service, Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar, having been appointed, who were at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 of the merit list, there was no post to accommodate Smt. C. Roubavady and Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline, in the Puducherry Judicial Service, but as there were two Ex-cadre posts, Smt. C. Roubavady and Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline, have been promoted on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, as District Judges, by the Office Order in No.1611/2009-LD, issued by the Government of Puducherry, Law Department, dated 6. 2009. In view of the aforesaid findings, no relief can be granted in W.P.Nos.14499, 9844, 9520 and 13526 of 2009 as sought for by the respective petitioners, relating to the Puducherry Judicial Service. However, taking into consideration the fact that Mr. K. Uthirapathy was appointed as a direct recruit, after following all the procedures, but the order of appointment was issued on temporary and ad-hoc basis, in view of some complaint filed against him, which is no more existing, and that Mr. However, taking into consideration the fact that Mr. K. Uthirapathy was appointed as a direct recruit, after following all the procedures, but the order of appointment was issued on temporary and ad-hoc basis, in view of some complaint filed against him, which is no more existing, and that Mr. D. Ramabathiran was also recommended for regular promotion in the cadre, but has also been issued with the order of promotion on temporary and ad-hoc basis for the reasons best known to the Union Territory of Puducherry, which could not be clarified and that the appointments of both the aforesaid persons, namely Mr. K. Uthirapathy and Mr. D. Ramabathiran, having been held to be regular and substantive, we direct the respondent-Union Territory of Puducherry to issue appropriate order, giving them regular appointment/promotion to the post of District Judge from the date of their original order of appointment/promotion so issued on 23. 2002 and 8. 2005, respectively. Similarly, Mr. K. Dakshinamoorthy and Mr. E.M.K. Siddharthar, both having been recommended for regular promotion, but having been promoted on temporary and adhoc basis, only because of the pendency of cases in W.P.Nos.33524 and 35164 of 2007, and now that the said cases also having been decided in their favour, the respondent-Union Territory of Puducherry is also directed to issue regular order of promotion in their favour with effect from the date of their earlier promotion order was issued on temporary and ad-hoc basis, i.e. on 11. 2008. The aforesaid directions given by this Court in the case of the four Judicial Officers, namely M/s. K. Uthirapathy, D. Ramabathiran, K. Dakshinamoorthy and E.M.K. Siddharthar, be complied with immediately, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No direction is given with regard to Smt. C. Roubavady and Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline, who have been appointed on temporary and ad-hoc basis, in the absence of any post in the regular cadre. No direction is given with regard to Smt. C. Roubavady and Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline, who have been appointed on temporary and ad-hoc basis, in the absence of any post in the regular cadre. But however we make it clear that no person can claim for direct recruitment or recruitment by selection from among Civil Judges (Senior Division) against the respective 25% quota as against the Ex-cadre posts, pursuant to the Puducherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008, and therefore, the said Judicial Officers, namely Smt. C. Roubavady and Smt. R. Margaret Rosaline may continue until further orders are issued by this Court in its Administrative Side, for regular promotion, followed by the order as may be issued by the Union Territory of Puducherry. 14. TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE: The respondents have brought to the notice of this Court that the strength of the cadre of the District Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service is 110. As per the Old Rules, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995, a ratio of 1:5 was prescribed to fill up the posts by direct recruitment and promotion. The approximate number of posts which could have been filled up and existing number of promotees and direct recruits, are shown hereunder: Total Cadre Strength : 110 Old Rules, 1995 : 1:5 ratio TABLE The Old Rules, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1995, have been amended and replaced by the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which was Gazetted on 11. 2007. As per the New Rules, 2007, the quota and entitlement of post, out of 110 cadre strength, will be as follows: (i) By promotion : 50%--55 posts (ii)By selection from Civil Judges : 25%--27 posts (iii) By direct recruitment : 25%--28 posts However, the present strength against each such quota are as follows: Total Cadre Strength: 110 New Rules, 2007 TABLE 65. promotees have promoted on regular basis as per the Old Rules, 1995 as against the promotion quota. Merely because the quota of promotees has been reduced under the New Rules, 2007, they cannot be reverted to the lower post to accommodate others. promotees have promoted on regular basis as per the Old Rules, 1995 as against the promotion quota. Merely because the quota of promotees has been reduced under the New Rules, 2007, they cannot be reverted to the lower post to accommodate others. Only on the retirement of ten Officers out of the existing 65, those ten vacancies can be distributed among the other two quotas, namely (a) quota meant for selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division) and (b) quota meant for appointment by direct recruitment. Ten persons being excess against the promotee quota, this Court is of the view that by both the sources of recruitment, namely, appointment by selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division) and appointment by direct recruitment, the posts against their respective quota be reduced to the extent of 5 posts each for the present. It has been brought to the notice of the Court as to how nine persons have been appointed by selection from among the Civil Judges (Senior Division) prior to New Rules, 2007. On behalf of the High Court, the Registrar General has informed by filing additional affidavit that the Administrative Side of this Court, in its meeting held on 24. 2004, resolved as follows: "According to the decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247 ), 25% of the vacancies in the cadre of District Judges have to be filled up by Direct Recruitment. Direct Recruitment has been recently held and the oral interview is going on. 25% of the vacancies have to be filled up from among the Civil Judges (Sr. Division) by holding a special written test. The Registrar General is directed to notify ten vacancies in the cadre of District Judges for the purpose of holding written test from among the Civil Judges (Senior Division), who have completed five years of experience in that cadre." Accordingly, the High Court, by Official Memorandum in ROC.No.34/2004/Con.B2, dated 5. 2004, notified ten vacancies in the cadre of District Judge and there was a proposal to fill up them by holding a special test from among the Civil Judges (Senior Division), who had completed five years of service in that cadre. On such Notification, 41 eligible Civil Judges (Senior Division) submitted their willingness to appear for the special test. Thereafter, the Administrative Committee of this Court, in its meeting held on 16. On such Notification, 41 eligible Civil Judges (Senior Division) submitted their willingness to appear for the special test. Thereafter, the Administrative Committee of this Court, in its meeting held on 16. 2004, resolved to hold special competitive examination as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of "All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India" reported in 2002 (4) SCC 247 and 41 eligible Civil Judges (Senior Division) were informed that the competitive examination shall consist of written test and oral interview, which will carry each 75 marks and 25 marks respectively, the total being 100. In the written test held on 26. 2004, 40 candidates attended and during the viva-voce test held on 26. 2004 and 26. 2004, 39 candidates appeared. Thereafter, on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test and viva-voce test, and having satisfied about the Annual Confidential Reports borne on the substantive category of Civil Judges (Senior Division), ten Judicial Officers having been found fit for promotion as District Judges as against 1/4 quota of District Judges cadre, their names were forwarded to the Government of Tamil Nadu by the High Courts D.O.No.34/2004.Con.B2, dated 30.6.2004. The Government of Tamil Nadu, in their turn, by G.O.Ms.No.1689, dated 12. 2004, issued from Public (Spl-A) Department, issued orders promoting ten Civil Judges(Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judge on regular basis. The orders of such appointment was challenged by one K. Asokan and others in W.P.(C).No.279 of 2004 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.10.2007. Out of ten District Judges so appointed against 25% quota through limited competitive examination, one District Judge has already retired from service on superannuation and nine are working. The present position of the cadre has been shown in the preceding paragraph. The petitioner-P. Murugan in W.P.No.17665 of 2009 has questioned the appointment of respondents 5 to 24 as ad-hoc District Judges (Entry Level), made Vide G.O. (D).No.128, dated 27. 2009 issued from Public (Special-A) Department. The main plea taken is that those posts should have been filled up by direct recruitment from the members of the Bar as against 25% quota as per the New Rules, 2007. On behalf of the High Court, reasons have been shown by the learned Senior Counsel in support of the issuance of the impugned order of appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis. On behalf of the High Court, reasons have been shown by the learned Senior Counsel in support of the issuance of the impugned order of appointment of District Judges (Entry Level) on ad-hoc basis. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court, one vacancy in the cadre of District Judge means one Court of the District Judge remains vacant. The existing 25 vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment and by selection, through limited examination from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division), including the posts occupied by the respondents 5 to 24 in W.P.No.17665 of 2009 on ad-hoc basis. As such procedure for appointment will take some time, say six to ten months, the High Court decided to fill up the posts on ad-hoc basis for the present till the posts are filled up on regular basis. In support of such statement, proceedings of the Selection Committee was produced and the impugned G.O.(D).No.128, dated 27. 2009 issued from Public (Special. A) Department was relied upon, wherein the following stipulation has been made in paragraph 2: "2. The Government have further decided to inform the judicial officers promoted in para 1 above that they shall be reverted to their substantive post or to the post of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) which they are holding for the present, as and when the cadre posts of District Judge (Entry Level) are filled up on regular basis as per the Rules and order accordingly." In view of the stand taken by the High Court and the specific Notification issued by the State, in the aforesaid G.O., dated 27. 2009, stipulating that the appointments have been made on ad-hoc basis in the existing vacant posts and the Judicial Officers have been informed that they shall be reverted to their substantive post or to the post of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), which they are holding for the present, as and when the cadre posts of District Judge (Entry Level) are filled up on regular basis as per the Rules, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such ad-hoc arrangement, as such interference will go against the public interest and the public will suffer if the Courts of District Judges do not function. We have already noticed that ten promotees are excess to the quota and till they retire, those ten posts cannot be allocated to be filled up either by direct recruitment or by selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division). The rest of the posts vacant on substantive basis are 25 posts, which includes 21 posts occupied by the promotees on ad-hoc basis, who are to be reverted on regular recruitment. We have further noticed that 18 posts are short as against 25% quota to be filled up by selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division), whereas 17 posts are short as against 25% quota of direct recruits. Combining together, they are entitled for 35 posts, but ten posts having been already occupied by promotees, only 25 posts can be filled up. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that for the present, five posts against the entitlement of quota for direct recruits may not be filled up and similarly five posts against the entitlement of the quota by selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division) may not be filled up (total 10), as ten excess promotees are to be accommodated till they retire. The rest of 25 vacant posts are therefore to be filled up for the present in the following manner:- (i) selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division): 18 posts further entitlement but 5 posts occupied by promotees = 13 posts (ii) direct recruitment: 17 posts further entitlement but 5 posts occupied by promotees = 12 posts It has been informed that the High Court has already taken steps to fill up the posts meant for direct recruits against their 25% quota. We expect that the High Court will fill up for the present 12 posts of District Judges by direct recruitment, by following the procedures as prescribed under law, by 30.6.2010. The High Court, if so required, may mention in the advertisement that if any further posts against the direct recruitment quota (maximum 5 posts) fall vacant by December 2010, due to retirement of regular promotee District Judges, they may also be filled up out of the panel to be prepared, as the life of the panel generally continues for a period of one year. So far as the posts to be filled up by selection from Civil Judges (Senior Division) is concerned, for the present, 13 posts of District Judges may be filled up, but we are not prescribing any time frame and leave it open to the High Court in its Administrative Side to decide the same with the able guidance of The Honourable The Chief Justice. 15. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.