ORDER (Per V. Eswaraiah, J.) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar (Vigilance)/lst respondent in W.P.23719/2008 filed this review petition under Rule-24 of the Writ Rules read with Section 1140fCPC to review the order of this Court dated 26-03-2009 in W.P.23719 of 2008. 2. The question that arises for consideration in this review petition is whether it can be said that the review petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, and if so, whether there are any grounds made out for review of the order of this Court. 3. The review petition is maintainable under Rule-24 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 read with Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code if the review petitioner discovers new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reason. Unless a mistake has been crept in or an error is apparent on the face of the record is made out, it is not open for the aggrieved person to obtain a review of the order made 40 against him and he cannot apply for the I review of the judgment. 4. The review petitioner seek to review the order of the Court dated 26-03-2009 passed in W.P.23719 of 2008 on the ground that this Court committed an error in directing the appointment to the posts of District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 percent with reference to the cadre strength and not with reference to the vacancies arising after the new Rules came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2007. It is contended that the ratio among the feeder category to the posts of District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 of the cadre strength by way of direct recruitment; recruitment by transfer on the basis of merit through departmental competitive examination (accelerated recruitment by transfer) and; recruitment by transfer from among the Senior Civil Judges respectively is introduced for the first time, as such, the ratio is made applicable only to the vacancies sought to be filled up which arose after the new Rules came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2007. The operative directions in so far as 50% of the cadre strength to be filled up by recruitment by transfer from among the senior civil judges is unwarranted and the said direction is not in accordance with law, particularly, against the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others (1) in Civil Appeal No.1867 of 2006 dated 04-01-2007. 5. It is further stated that the cadre strength of the District Judges including the temporary and permanent is only 163 and the total officers working in the cadre of the District Judges are 178 which includes deputation to ex-cadre posts and vacancies arose due to deputation are only temporary vacancies which cannot be filled either by direct recruitment or promoting the officers in the cadre of senior civil judges, since further appointments would increase the cadre strength. Thus, it is contended that the said direction constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. The District Judges working in the cadre posts are in excess of the sanctioned strength of the District Judges i.e. 163 at present and therefore, the direction issued by this Court to notify the vacancies in the cadre of the District Judges in the aforesaid ratio even in respect of temporary vacancies (ex-cadre posts) is against the guidelines of the Supreme Court issued in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others (1 supra). 6. It is further contended that when the notification to fill up 13 posts in the cadre of District Judges by way of direct recruitment vide notification dated 07-04-2007 and corrigendum to the notification issued on 28-07-2007, the A.P. State Higher Judicial Services Rules 2007 were not notified, but they were notified only on 02-08- 2008 giving retrospective effect w.e.f.01-01-2007 and thus the calculation of the vacancy position as on 31-03-2007 by the High Court was based on future vacancies, without considering the nature of vacancy i.e. whether temporary or permanent and whether total strength would exceed the sanctioned strength of the officers in the cadre of the District Judges. Therefore, the direction issued for appointment of the District Judges in the ratio, as above, is illegal and unwarranted. Therefore, the direction issued for appointment of the District Judges in the ratio, as above, is illegal and unwarranted. It is further stated that this Court ought not to have given any direction to fill up the vacancies of the District Judges by direct recruitment as well as accelerated recruitment by transfer, as no relief was claimed by the petitioners. 7. We have heard Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the High Court as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The writ petitioner sought for a direction to direct the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and State of Andhra Pradesh to fill up 39 posts of District and Sessions Judges by way of accelerated recruitment by transfer, recruitment by transfer from among the senior civil judges, simultaneously along with 13 posts of District and Sessions Judges (entry level by direct recruitment) and therefore, it cannot be said that no relief was claimed by the petitioners for recruitment of the District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50. The only contention raised by the petitioner was that the aforesaid ratio is applicable in respect of the vacancies arising after 01-01-2007, the date from which the Rules of 2007 deemed to have come into force. We have already dealt with the said issue in detail and arrived at the conclusions in the judgment under review and therefore, it cannot be said that the said conclusions and directions are not in accordance with the Rules, 2007 or the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P.Public Service Commission and others (1 supra) 9. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh made the Rules of 2007 which have come into force w.e.f. 01-01-2007 for appointment to the category of District Judges i.e. 25% in the cadre strength by direct recruitment, 25% in the cadre strength by accelerated recruitment by transfer, 50% in the cadre strength by recruitment by transfer from among the category of senior civil judges on the basis of merit-cum-ability. Therefore, we are unable to accept as to how our judgment is contrary to the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or the Rules 2007. 10. For the first time an issue has been raised by the High Court with regard to excadre posts. Therefore, we are unable to accept as to how our judgment is contrary to the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or the Rules 2007. 10. For the first time an issue has been raised by the High Court with regard to excadre posts. We have to look into the aspect as to whether the said ex-cadre posts shall be treated as temporary vacancies in the cadre within the meaning of "Cadre Strength". We have already held in the judgment under review that as per Rule 2(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007 "Cadre" means the post in each category of service, and as per Rule 2 (d) "Cadre strength" means the number of posts permanent as well as temporary in the cadre. Therefore, it cannot be said that tl1e ex-cadre posts do not come within the meaning of the "Cadre Strength". If ex-cadre posts also require to be considered as cadre strength, the said ex-cadre posts are required to be filled up, and therefore, while making appointments to the cadre of District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 percent, the temporary posts including the required ex-cadre posts as well as permanent, posts have to be taken into account. Therefore, the ex-cadre posts would also come within the meaning of the cadre strength. If all the ex-cadre posts, though they are temporary in the cadre, are excluded in the cadre strength, no District Judge will be available for posting to the ex-cadre post. In fact, in many of the ex-cadre posts, to run the administration, senior District Judges are being posted. 11. While issuing the notification, the temporary posts in the cadre are also required to be taken into account, and in fact, the High Court has rightly taken into account the same while issuing the earlier notification for the direct recruitment of District Judges in the ratio of 25% of the cadre strength. Therefore, it cannot now be contended by the review petitioner that the ex-cadre posts i.e. Officers posted on deputation cannot be counted in the cadre strength for the purpose of recruitment of the District Judges. 12. The learned standing counsel appearing for the High Court placed the additional material stating that cadre strength as on 31-03-2008 is 155 (permanent 88, temporar . (7) and subsequently 10 posts of District Judges were sanctioned increasing the cadre strength to 165. 12. The learned standing counsel appearing for the High Court placed the additional material stating that cadre strength as on 31-03-2008 is 155 (permanent 88, temporar . (7) and subsequently 10 posts of District Judges were sanctioned increasing the cadre strength to 165. But in fact, the total number of officers working as on 31-03-2008 are 178 and out of which, 28 officers (including the three District Judges who are appointed by way of direct recruitment and 25 District Judges who are appointed by way of Transfer) are working on other duty (ex-cadre posts) on deputation. The cadre strength on 24-08-2009 is 165 and total number of officers working as on 24-08-2009 are 168, out at which 19 officers (including the three District Judges who are appointed by way of direct recruitment and 16 District Judges who are appointed by way of transfer) are working on other duty (ex-cadre posts) on deputation. 13. By order dated 26-08-2009, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court was requested to furnish the following particulars; 1. Total number of District Judges required to be posted on other duties; 2. Whether the said posts are required to be treated as temporary vacancies in the cadre of the District Judges, and as to whether the said vacancies can be taken into consideration for making recruitment. 14. Pursuant to the said order, the learned standing counsel submitted that the total number of deputation posts in the cadre of the District and Sessions Judges is not constant and vary from time to time. But, however, out of 28 deputation posts in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges working on other duty as on 28-03-2008, 19 deputation posts relate to judiciary. Out of said 19 posts, 5 are working as Registrars of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 4 are working in the A.P. Judicial Academy, 2 are working in A.P. State Legal Services Authority and A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, 2 are working as Law Secretaries of Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2 are working as Chairmen, permanent Lok Adalats and in the remaining 4, one is Chief Legal Advisor of Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, another is Director of Prosecution and other two are Registrars of A.P. State Human Rights Commission and A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 15. 15. The officers working in the ex-cadre posts are (1) Registrar General, (2) Registrar Administration, (3) Registrar Vigilance, (4) Registrar Judicial, (5) Registrar Enquiries, (6) Secretary to Government, (Legal Affairs), Law Department; (7) Secretary to the Government, Law (L.A and J-SC.F) Department; (8) Director, A.P. Judicial Academy, (9) Additional Director, A.P. Judicial Academy, (10) Senior Faculty Member-I, AP. Judicial Academy, (11) Senior Faculty Member-II, A.P. Judicial Academy, (12) Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, (13) Member Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority, (14) Director of Prosecutions, (15) Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Hyderabad, (16) Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Karimnagar, (17) Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Kadapa, (18) Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Guntur, (19) Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, (20) Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Chittoor, and (21) Devasthanam Law Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati. All the said ex-cadre deputation posts are permanent in their nature and the said posts cannot be kept vacant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ex-cadre posts are not required to be taken into account as cadre strength in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges. 16. Apart from the aforesaid 21 ex-cadre posts working on other duties, on deputation basis, the District Judges are also being posted on the following other duties; (1) Registrar, Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act; (2) Registrar, AP. Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta, (3) Chief Legal Advisor, Office of the Addl. DGP, CID, Hyderabad; (4) Chief Legal Advisor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad; (5) Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal (6) Registrar, A.P. State Human Rights Commission, (7) Commissioner (Legal) office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad; (8) Director, (Legal), A.P. Lok Ayukta, (9) President, District Consumer Forum, Nellore. 17. Even if the High Court refuses to post the officers in the cadre of District Judges to the aforesaid 9 ex-cadre posts, it cannot dispense with the posting of the officers in the cadre of the District Judges to the aforesaid 21 ex-cadre posts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the officers working in the ex-cadre posts are not required to be taken into account for recruitment of the District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 percent. 18. Therefore, it cannot be said that the officers working in the ex-cadre posts are not required to be taken into account for recruitment of the District Judges in the ratio of 25:25:50 percent. 18. It is also required to be noticed that even in respect of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1954 each State has fixed cadre strength and while fixing the total authorized strength, particular percentage of the deputation posts of the senior posts under the State Government and the posts to be filled by promotion and selection, and the deputation reserve 25% of them and certain percentage for the leave, revenue, junior posts and training reserve are also taken into account to notify the vacancies with a view, not to hamper, the administration. 19. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the ex-cadre posts are to be treated as temporary vacancies in the cadre of the District and Sessions Judges and the said vacancies can be taken in to consideration for temporary appointment. The temporary appointments under Rule 14 of the Rules 2007 are required to be made in the public interest owing to the exigency in the service to fill up immediate vacancies in the category of District Judges where there is an undue delay in making such appointments, in accordance with Rules 4 to 6 on temporary basis by transfer among the category of the senior civil judges. The temporary appointments are only stop gap appointments till the regular appointments are made. 20. Similarly, the ad hoc appointments of Fast Track Court Judges are required to be made under Rule 15 and the persons appointed on ad hoc basis shall not be regarded as members of the cadre. But whereas the persons appointed on temporary basis are also required to be taken as members of the cadre, as the cadre strength includes permanent as well as temporary in the cadre. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the High Court that said 19 or 21 of ex-cadre posts, relating to judiciary, referred to above, are temporary appointments and that these posts cannot be taken into account as "cadre strength" for the purpose of recruitment. The officers who are working in ex-cadre posts and occupied as Registrars, Law Secretaries, Permanent Lok Adalats, Director, Additional Director, Senior Faculty Members of Judicial Academy, Secretaries of the Legal Services Authority etc. The officers who are working in ex-cadre posts and occupied as Registrars, Law Secretaries, Permanent Lok Adalats, Director, Additional Director, Senior Faculty Members of Judicial Academy, Secretaries of the Legal Services Authority etc. cannot be treated as temporary appointments, and in fact, they were recruited on regular basis and are holding the aforesaid ex-cadre posts on other duty. The nature of posts are such that manning of said posts by one officer or the other is a permanent feature and said requirement does not cease at any time. Therefore, the said ex-cadre posts are also required to be taken into account to notify the vacancies in the cadre of District Judges. 21. When we had heard the main writ petition, the aforesaid officers working on deputation as well as ex-cadre posts were not brought to our notice. In the light of the discussion, as above, as we have found that the posting of aforesaid District Judges to man the said posts being indispensable the said posts have also to be counted while calculating the total number of vacancies in the category of District Judges. The Officers occupying the said posts have, therefore, to be treated as temporary vacancies in the cadre and the total number of posts to be recruited has to be worked out on an aggregate. 22. The figures calculated by us in paragraph-21 of the main judgment, has, therefore, to be worked out in the light of clarification, as above. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above clarification.