ORDER (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) Writ Petition No.3834 of 2010 is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and revert respondents 2 to 20 as they are not eligible to be promoted as Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars. 2. The facts stated are:- the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant on 01-4-1983 and promoted as Assistant Section Officer on 07-1-1997, later promoted as Deputy Section Officer on 11-2-2002 and thereafter further promoted as Section Officer on 11-3-2005 and since then he has been working as such. Respondents 2 to 20 were initially appointed as Court Masters, a post included in Category-6 of Division-I of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975, for short "the Rules". According to Schedule-I appended to the Rules, to hold the post of a Court Master, under Category-6, one must have passed Government Technical Examination with a speed of 180 words per minute (wpm) in shorthand and Typewriting Higher Grade. It is stated that the 1st respondent-Registrar General has communicated seniority list of officers of the posts under Categories-2 to 4 of Division-I, working in High Court of Andhra Pradesh as on 1-7-2009. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know from said list that respondents 2 to 20 did not fulfil the requisite qualification of 180 words per minute in Shorthand as per Schedule-I of the Rules, and hence stated that they are not entitled to be appointed as Court Masters and further promoted as Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars, respectively. It is also his case that promotions of respondents 2 to 20 as Assistant Registrars/ Deputy Registrars are contrary to the Rules as their initial appointment as Court Masters itself was contrary to the Rules. 3. It is further stated that according to Rule 8 of the Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment as a 'Full Member' in the Categories 1 to 4 of Division-I, unless he qualifies himself in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation. The respondents 2 to 4, 6 and 13 to 18 did not pass the Accounts Test for Executive Officers so far. The respondents 2 to 4, 6 and 13 to 18 did not pass the Accounts Test for Executive Officers so far. According to Rule 11 (2) of the Rules, if a probationer fails to pass the prescribed Special Tests, the appointing authority shall by order discharge him unless the period of probation is extended under Rule 12. It is stated that no extension was granted to respondents 2 to 20 to pass the test. That even assuming if extension was granted, the period of probation cannot extend beyond a period of one year under Rule 12 of the Rules. Therefore, said respondents who have not passed the Accounts Test are liable to be discharged or reverted to the lower post. But contrary to the Rules, the respondents 2 to 20 were allowed to continue in the category of Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars and as such, the petitioner is deprived of promotion as Assistant Registrar. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Registrar General-1st respondent has filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter that respondents 5, 7 to 16, 18 and 20 were initially appointed in various departments and they were selected and appointed by transfer in Andhra Pradesh High Court Service, whereas respondents 2, 4, 6, 17 and 19 were appointed directly as Court Masters in AP High Court Service. As per the gradation list furnished to the employees working in Category-4 of Division-I, respondents 2, 3, and 5 to 20 did not possess required qualification, i.e., pass in Shorthand 180 words per minute It is denied that respondent No.4 did not possess the required qualification, i.e., pass in Shorthand 180 words per minute. Respondents 6, 9 to 11, 14 and 17 are concerned, they possessed Shorthand 150 wpm at the time of their selection and respondents 12, 15 and 20 have acquired Shorthand 150 wpm qualification after their election as Court Masters. Other respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18 and 19 passed the shorthand higher qualification of 120 words per minute at the time of selection. 5. Other respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18 and 19 passed the shorthand higher qualification of 120 words per minute at the time of selection. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit of first respondent that the usual procedure for selection of Court Masters in the High Court is that the Registry will place a note before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice bringing to His Lordship's notice about the vacancies in the category of Court Masters; and as a practice, Hon'ble the Chief Justice will nominate a Committee of Hon'ble Judges for the selection process of Court Masters. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Committee of Hon'ble Judges, the Registry issues a publication in Newspapers, calling for applications from aspiring candidates who are having required qualifications, that is, pass in Shorthand Higher, Shorthand 150 wpm and Shorthand 180 wpm besides higher grade in typewriting and a degree in any discipline. Similarly, a circular will also be sent to all the District Courts informing the Unit Heads to obtain and forward applications of candidates who are having the above said qualifications for considering their names to the post of Court Masters, by transfer. The Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted for the purpose of selection process select the candidates who have qualified in the separate test conducted by the High Court in Shorthand 180 wpm, though they did not possess shorthand 180 wpm pass certificate as required for appointment to the post of Court Master. That as per the selection made by the Committee of Hon'ble Judges, successive Hon'ble Chief Justices used to approve the list of selected candidates by giving relaxation to the selected candidates exempting from possessing the requisite qualification i.e., pass in shorthand 180 wpm under Rule 23 of the Rules. Accordingly, the candidates who were qualified in the tests conducted by the Registry were being appointed as Court Masters. Respondents 2, 3 and 5 to 20 were also exempted from passing shorthand 180 wpm at the time of their selection, and by virtue of their seniority they are being promoted to higher posts. Accordingly, the candidates who were qualified in the tests conducted by the Registry were being appointed as Court Masters. Respondents 2, 3 and 5 to 20 were also exempted from passing shorthand 180 wpm at the time of their selection, and by virtue of their seniority they are being promoted to higher posts. It is submitted that there is dearth of qualified candidates for the post of Court Masters and whenever the Registry had issued the notifications calling for applications for the post of Court Masters, there were very few candidates, who have applied for the post having a pass in Shorthand of 180 wpm., that to avoid inconvenience to the Hon'ble Judges which, in fact, would result in hampering administration of justice, the Registry used to conduct the tests under the supervision of the Committee of the Hon'ble Judges and that based on the tests, the qualified candidates were being selected by relaxation of the Rule, i.e., pass in Shorthand English 180 wpm., by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 6. It is also submitted in the counter that as per Rule 7(5)(a) of the Rules, an employee working in the Registry in Category 6 of Division-I is eligible for promotion, if he holds a Degree in Law of University in India and there is no specific rule requiring the employees who are working in Category 6 of Division-I to acquire a pass in Departmental Test, i.e., Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I. Hence initiation of action against the respondents as per Rules 11(2) and 12 of the Rules does not arise and the said Rules have no application in the matter. It is submitted that as per Rule 8 of the Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment as a Full Member in categories 1 to 4 of Division-I, unless he qualifies himself in Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation, provided that the person who has already passed Part-I of the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers shall not be required to pass the Accounts Test for Executive Officers. Every employee working in the Registry in the Category of 4 of Division-I shall have to pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers- Part-I, to become a Full Member of the Registry. Every employee working in the Registry in the Category of 4 of Division-I shall have to pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers- Part-I, to become a Full Member of the Registry. However, the promotions are being effected in the Registry from Category-6 to Category-4 even though the concerned individual does not pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers-Part-I, as the said condition is only for declaring an employee as a 'Full Member' of the Registry, but not for considering their candidature for promotion to higher posts. 7. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner while working as Deputy Section Officer he was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 11-3-2005, that at the time of his promotion as Section Officer, there were 118 Section Officers above him and that the case of the petitioner would be considered to the post of Assistant Registrar whenever his turn comes after the promotion of his seniors, who are eligible for promotion as per the seniority. The petitioner questions appointment/ recruitment of respondents 2 to 20 made over decades back and, therefore, cannot ay such a claim at this belated stage. Any challenge to recruitment/appointment at a belated stage has to be rejected, as it seeks to distort the vested right and promotions which have accrued to the individuals during the intervening period resulting in complications in administration. Moreover, it is also the prerogative of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to grant exemptions to any individual person or members of Andhra Pradesh High Court Service in matters of appointments/promotions etc., from possessing requisite qualifications, and the petitioner has no locus standi in this regard. Hence, it is stated that the writ petition is able to be dismissed in limine. 8. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 to 15 and 20. It is submitted that the said respondents appeared for the Shorthand Tests conducted by the High Court at various speeds and on satisfaction of their performance, they were appointed as Court Masters, after relaxation of Rules by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, exercising powers under Rule 23 of the Rules, long back. It is submitted that the said respondents appeared for the Shorthand Tests conducted by the High Court at various speeds and on satisfaction of their performance, they were appointed as Court Masters, after relaxation of Rules by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, exercising powers under Rule 23 of the Rules, long back. The probation of the said respondents was declared long back, by relaxing the condition of passing 180 wpm in English Shorthand, and they were subsequently promoted as Assistant Registrars and some of them were promoted later as Deputy Registrars and hence the writ petition, filed at this point of time, is liable to be dismissed in limine, on account of laches. By virtue of the promotion of the respondents from time to time, the petitioner is estopped to question their promotion. Further, the writ petition as framed is not maintainable, as the orders of appointment, orders of regularization of services or orders declaring probation or orders of promotion of the said respondents have not been challenged by the petitioner. With regard to applicability of Rule 8 of the Rules, it is stated that one must pass the Accounts Test, during the period of his probation only for declaring him/her as a Full Member of the Registry, but not for considering the candidature for promotion to the higher post and that as per the Rules, even an approved probationer is entitled for being considered for promotion to the higher post. The petitioner has not challenged the power conferred on the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Rule 23 of the Rules to relax the conditions and hence the petitioner has no locus standi to question the authority of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in giving promotions/appointments by relaxing the relevant rules. Moreover, the petitioner is not an affected candidate. As per Rule 5 of the Rules, for promotion to the categories in Division-I, Assistant Registrars and above, one must be in the feeder category and should hold a degree of law of a recognized University in India. 9. Respondents 3, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 19 have filed separate counter affidavits inter alia on the same lines, as in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 to 15 and 20, and submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Respondents 3, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 19 have filed separate counter affidavits inter alia on the same lines, as in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 to 15 and 20, and submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Respondent No.3 in her counter affidavit specifically submitted that promotion of respondents 2 to 20 as Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars has nothing to do with the petitioner, since there are two channels of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, i.e., Section Officers/ Court Officers/Scrutiny Officers and Accounts Officers falling under Category 5, and Court Masters/ Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and Registrars falling under Category-6. In a unit of three promotional posts, the first two posts are to be filled up from category 5 and the third promotional post has to be filled from members belonging to category 6. Since the petitioner is working as Section Officer, he cannot challenge the promotions effected from the members belonging to category 6, i.e., respondents 2 to 20. 11. Respondent No.9 in his counter affidavit submitted that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is the appointing authority for Category-6 of Division-I. One of the qualifications prescribed for the said recruitment to Category-6 is 'a pass certificate in Government Technical Examination with a speed of 180 wpm in English Shorthand'. As there had been dearth of candidates possessing such high speed qualification, and to meet exigencies of service, candidates possessing the qualification in English Shorthand @ 120 wpm were made eligible to apply. In the recruitments, competitive tests in English Shorthand with varying speeds viz., 120 wpm, 150 wpm and 180 wpm were conducted and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice invited top rankers of such competitive tests for interview either by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice himself or by a Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted for that purpose. In the recruitments, competitive tests in English Shorthand with varying speeds viz., 120 wpm, 150 wpm and 180 wpm were conducted and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice invited top rankers of such competitive tests for interview either by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice himself or by a Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted for that purpose. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the Committee of Hon'ble Judges so constituted for the purpose, after screening confidential files and service registers, in the case of candidates belonging to any service, and examining their knowledge and mental abilities would make final selection and appointment, and that so far as direct~ recruits are concerned, those who were selected in the written examination and oral test/interview would be recruited, upon verification and satisfaction about the reports received from Police as to their antecedents. It is stated that there were instances where even those who were holding certificate of a pass in shorthand 180 wpm could not succeed in the competitive tests conducted by the High Court. It is only on the basis of a pass in the speed test of English Shorthand 180 wpm conducted by the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in his prerogative would be pleased to grant exemption from passing the high speed examination conducted by the Board. The power to relax the Rules, vested with the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 23 of the Rules, is an absolute power and it has been exercised in the best interests of the administration and it cannot be questioned by the petitioner. In case of appointment as 'Full Member' to categories 1 to 4 of Division-I, qualification of pass in "Accounts Test for Executive Officers" is prescribed. However, power to grant the exemption can be exercised by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the matter of appointment as Full members to the said categories, if persons concerned are otherwise eligible to be appointed/promoted to those categories in the opinion of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 12. However, power to grant the exemption can be exercised by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the matter of appointment as Full members to the said categories, if persons concerned are otherwise eligible to be appointed/promoted to those categories in the opinion of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 12. Respondent No.16 in his counter affidavit submitted that the condition to the extent of obtaining a certificate is only relaxed, but the eligibility regarding the speed in Shorthand 180 wpm has been tested by the High Court by conducting a test in 180 wpm and only after due satisfaction as to the speed possessed by him and others in the said test, were appointed as Court Masters, by relaxing the Rule by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in exercise of the power under Rule 23 read with Rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules and Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The order of appointment issued to him by the High Court, vide proceedings in Roc.No.2005/91-Estt.1, dt.27.5.1992, itself clearly states that Rule 8 of the Rules to the extent of possessing speed of 180 wpm in English shorthand was relaxed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. With regard to pass in Accounts Test for Executive Officers is concerned, respondent No.16 submitted that he has passed the said test in June, 1987 itself as also the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I in November, 989 and he has also passed the Translation Test from English to Telugu and Telugu to English and that the entries to the said effect were made in his Service Register also, but the Registry while communicating the Gradation List dated 29.7.2009 of all the Officers belonging to Categories 2 to 4, has not mentioned the said entries. 13. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent - High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that though first respondent has stated in its counter affidavit that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice used to approve the list of selected candidates by giving relaxation to the selected candidates exempting from possessing the requisite qualification, there is no mention about the orders passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice relaxing the Rules in favour of respondents 2 to 20. It is submitted that it cannot be a general relaxation from a possessing the basic qualification. It is submitted that it cannot be a general relaxation from a possessing the basic qualification. Once the Rules prescribe a special qualification, the same cannot be relaxed. For declaring the employee as Full Member of the service, one must pass Accounts Test and failure to pass the said test leads to discharge from service under Rule 11(2) of the Rules, and the respondents, who failed to pass the Accounts Test for Executive Officers during the period of probation, shall be discharged. It is stated that a reading of Rules 2(5) and 8(1) of the Rules makes it clear that the appointments of respondents 2 to 4, 6, 13 to 18 are not regular and when their appointments are not regular, as per the Rules, they have to be discharged from service under Rule 11(2). It is submitted that the persons who were not regularly appointed as Assistant Registrars are being promoted as Deputy Registrars without taking action in accordance with the Rules. As it is not the case of the respondents that probation of the respondents was extended in terms of Rule 11, the respondents have to be discharged immediately after period of one year from the date of promotion. If the period of probation is extended, the same can be only for a period of another year and therefore after more than two years, the Assistant Registrars cannot be continued in service when they have not passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers. It is further stated that first respondent cannot continue the respondents who are to be discharged in accordance with the Rules and if the respondents are reverted from the post of Assistant Registrars, he will get promotion earlier. When an appointment is illegal and contrary to the Rules, the said appointments can be cancelled at any time. A person who does not possess the basic qualifications cannot be allowed to continue in service and therefore the question of delay does not arise. It is stated that merely the power or prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in relaxing the Rules under Rule 2.3 is not assailed that cannot be construed that all illegal appointments are deemed to be regularized in relaxation of the Rules. 14. It is stated that merely the power or prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in relaxing the Rules under Rule 2.3 is not assailed that cannot be construed that all illegal appointments are deemed to be regularized in relaxation of the Rules. 14. We have heard at length the learned counsel Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh High Court, Sri MVS Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2, 4,6,7,10,12 to 15 and 20, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Sri Mohammed Abdul Hameed, learned counsel for respondent No.9, Sri G. Shyam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.11, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.16, Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.17, and Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.19. 15. Sri JR Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the respondents 2 to 20 did not fulfil the requisite basic qualification of pass in English shorthand 180 wpm test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Board of Technical Education, for appointment to the post Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and Personal Secretaries to Registrars, and therefore the appointments made are not in accordance with the Rules. Learned counsel stated that the notifications ought to have been issued only in accordance with the Rules. The notifications issued for recruitment to the said posts contemplate that candidates who have passed 120 wpm in shorthand (English) test, conducted by the State Board of Technical Education 'also can apply for the posts', ought not to have been permitted and unless the Rules are amended, the 1st respondent cannot indicate such a concession in the notifications contrary to Rule 8 of the Rules. He contended that though the basic qualification under Rule 7(2) (d) of the Rules, for the posts of Category 6 of Division-I, is degree in any discipline and a certificate of pass in English shorthand 180 wpm being a special qualification, which is necessary for the Court Masters, prescribed by the Rule making authority, having regard to the nature of duties to be undertaken by them cannot be relaxed en-masse. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though Rule 23 of the Rules confers power on the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to grant relaxation, the same may be given in specific and individual cases, so as to avoid hardship or to give opportunity to get the candidates qualified in accordance with the Rules, but general relaxation is impermissible. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that under Rule 8 of the Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment as a Full Member in Categories 1 to r of Division - I, unless he qualifies in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation, and that the period of probation is one year and the same can be extended for one more year. It is his contention that though respondents 2 to 4, 6 and 13 to 18 have not passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers so far, they are allowed to continue in the category of Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars. Under Rule 11(2) of the Rules, if within the period of probation a probationer fails to pass the prescribed special tests, the appointing authority shall by order discharge him, unless it extends the period of probation under Rule 12. But, no extension was granted to pass these respondents to the test and even it is assumed that extension was granted the same can only be for one year and as the said respondents have not passed the Accounts Test, they are liable to be discharged or reverted to lower post. 17. Learned counsel lastly contended that when the High Court has frame the Rules, they have to follow the Rules and the purpose and object for which the Rules are framed should not be defeated. The petitioner has made representation on 23-1-2010 to the authorities of the High Court, but there is no response and no orders are passed. 18. Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - High Court, contended that the petitioner has no locus standi, that the writ petition is lack details, that it is a stale claim and that the petitioner belongs to category - 5 of Division-I and respondents 2 to 20 were promoted from category -6 of Division-I and as such the promotional channels are different, and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed in limine. Though for the post of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and Registrars, pass in Shorthand English in 180 w.p.m. test conducted by the A.P. State Board of Technical Education is the qualification, notifications were issued calling for applications also from the candidates who passed Shorthand English Higher Grade 120 wpm due to dearth of candidates who passed 180 wpm and 150 wpm, to see that the administration is not to put inconvenience and hardship, by giving necessary relaxation to the said qualification. However, Shorthand Tests in 150 wpm and 180 wpm were being conducted by the High Court to the candidates who have applied for the posts with Shorthand Higher Grade 120 wpm, and after satisfactory performance in those tests candidates were being selected. Moreover, exemption from possessing the said qualification was granted under Rule 23 of the Rules by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. She further contended that though every employee working in the Registry in the Category - 4 of Division I, shall have to pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, to become a Full Member of the Registry, it is not applicable for considering the candidature of respondents 2 to 20 for promotion to the higher post. 19. Sri MVS Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 to 15 and 20, contended that the writ petition, as framed, is short of details and cannot be entertained, that the settled things cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time, that there are laches, that for issuance of Writ of Mandamus basic requirement of demand and refusal must be there and in this case there is no demand and refusal and therefore there is no cause of action and that the writ petition is premature. He also contended that there is non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and there are no details of appointment and promotions of respondents 2 to 20 and the petitioner cannot agitate for stale claims. He also contended that there is non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and there are no details of appointment and promotions of respondents 2 to 20 and the petitioner cannot agitate for stale claims. He contended that though pass in Shorthand English 180 wpm test is the qualification, due to dearth of such candidates, the candidates having qualification of Shorthand English 120 wpm were also made eligible to apply for the posts and it is after conducting tests by the High Court in Shorthand 120 wpm, 150 wpm and 180 wpm and after satisfaction of their performance in the tests only the respondents were appointed by giving exemption to the qualification of pass in 180 wpm in exercise of power conferred on the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 23 of the Rules framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that Rule 8 of the Rules, i.e., pass in Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation, has no application to the respondents since the promotions are effected as temporary promotions and not as 'Full Member'. The category of the petitioner and these respondents are different and the channel to both the parties is different and he cannot have any parity and apart from that, there are so many other persons who are above the petitioner in the seniority and that it is a vexatious claim and therefore the Writ Petition has to be dismissed in limine. 20. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party as the petitioner belongs to Category-5 of Division-I and respondent 3 and others belong to category-6 of Division-I, that in every cycle of three promotions, the first two shall be filled from Category-5 and the third promotion from Category-6 and at any point of time the strength of promotees from category-6 shall not exceed 50% of the sanctioned strength in the post of Assistant Registrar. He has drawn our attention to Rule 8 of the Rules, and contended that the said Rule has no application to the respondents; as it is applicable only to 'Full Members' and not for the purpose of effecting promotions. 21. He has drawn our attention to Rule 8 of the Rules, and contended that the said Rule has no application to the respondents; as it is applicable only to 'Full Members' and not for the purpose of effecting promotions. 21. The other learned counsel appearing for party respondents have also submitted that the party respondents possess the basic qualification and also the special qualification of having the writing speed of 180 wpm in English shorthand, but they do not possess the certificate of pass in 180 wpm conducted by the competent Board of Technical Education. It is further stated by them that the High Court by conducting tests in the speeds of 180, 150 and 120 wpm in English shorthand and after satisfying that they possess the requisite speed of 180, 150 and 120 wpm in English shorthand respectively, selected them on the basis of merit and relaxation is made only to the extent of possessing pass certificate in 180 wpm in English shorthand, but not the knowledge or speed of 180 wpm in English shorthand. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the qualification of a pass in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers mentioned in Rule 1 (a) of Rule 8 has no application to categories 1 to 4 of Division-I for promotion and it applies only in case where a person appointed to categories 1 to 4 of Division-I is to be appointed as a 'Full Member'. 22. Before we proceed to delve upon the contentions raised by the parties, it is worthwhile to refer to the AP High Court Service Rules, 1975, relevant to our purpose. 23. Rule 3 of the Rules which deals with the constitution of the categorization of the posts of Division-I (Gazetted pasts) reads:- Category -1 : Registrar General Registrar (Administration) Registrar (Vigilance) Registrar (Judicial) Registrar (Management) Category -2 : Joint Registrars Category - 3: (a) Deputy Registrars (b) Principal Secretary tot Hon'ble the Chief Justice Category-4: (a) Assistant Registrars (b) Special Officer Category-5: Section Officers, Court Officers, Scrutiny Officer Accounts Officer. Category-6: Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to Judges, Personal Secretaries to Registrars." 24. Category-6: Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to Judges, Personal Secretaries to Registrars." 24. The qualification as required under Rule 7 of the Rules for appointment to the posts under Category- 6 of Division-I, i.e. the posts of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and Registrar in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is a graduation from any University recognized by University Grants Commission or recognized under State Act or Provisional Act. Special qualification is prescribed in Schedule-I of the Rules i.e. a pass in Typewriting by Higher Grade in English and a pass in Shorthand English in 180 wpm test conducted by the AP State Board of Technical Education. There is no dispute that all the party respondents possess pass certificate in Typewriting by Higher Grade. Relaxation is given only with regard to possessing of pass certificate in 180 wpm conducted by the Board of Technical Education. It is the case of the 1st respondent-Registrar General of the High Court that whenever the registry had issued notifications calling for applications for the posts of Court Masters there were few candidates, who have applied for the posts having a pass in Shorthand 180 wpm and that to avoid inconvenience to the Hon'ble Judges and also the administration of judicial work does not suffer, candidates possessing technical qualification in Shorthand 120 wpm were made eligible to apply. It is an admitted fact that the High Court conducts competitive tests in Shorthand (English) with varying speeds viz., 120 wpm, 150 wpm and 180 wpm and the top rankers were called upon for oral interview either by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice himself or by a Committee of Hon'ble Judges constituted for that purpose. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the Committee of Hon'ble Judges so constituted for the purpose, after screening confidential files and service registers, in the case of candidates belonging to any service, and examining their knowledge and mental abilities would make final selection and appointments. But in view of the requirement of possessing pass certificate in a speed of 180 wpm Shorthand the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in his prerogative, pleased to grant exemption from possessing the pass certificate in a speed of 180 wpm. But in view of the requirement of possessing pass certificate in a speed of 180 wpm Shorthand the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in his prerogative, pleased to grant exemption from possessing the pass certificate in a speed of 180 wpm. The requirement to the extent of possessing the certificate is only relaxed, but the eligibility regarding the speed in Shorthand 180 wpm has been tested by the High Court by conducting test in 180 wpm and only after due satisfaction as to the required speed, which is in fact in tune with the special qualification, the candidates were appointed as Court Masters by relaxing the Rule. 25. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India (1) AIR 1991 SC 284 , J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan (2) AIR 1994 SC 1808 are cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to sustain his contention that rules prescribing the process and qualification for recruitment cannot be relaxed and only the conditions of service can be relaxed. The decision in Dr. Narinder Mohan's case (2 supra) is cited to support his contention that once statutory rules have been made, the appointment shall be only in accordance with the rules and power to relax the rules could be resorted to tide over unforeseen exigencies. Decision of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashrtra (3) (1990) 2 SCC 715 and Narender Chadha v. Union of India (4) (1986) 2 SCC 157 are cited to contend that where officers were promoted without following the procedure prescribed in the rules and worked continuously for long periods without being reverted, then their period of continuous officiation should be counted for seniority and that any other view would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 26. Rule 23 of the Rules deals with relaxation of Rules by the Chief Justice reads:- "Rule 23. 26. Rule 23 of the Rules deals with relaxation of Rules by the Chief Justice reads:- "Rule 23. Relaxation of Rules by the Chief Justice: - Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any member of the service or any person to be appointed to the service in such manner as may appear to him to be just or equitable: Provided that where any such rule is applicable to the case of any person the case shall not be dealt with in any manner, less favourable to him than that provided by that rule." 27. The power to relax the Rules vests with the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Rule 23 of the Rules. It is an absolute power and it has been exercised in the interests of the administration. The relaxation had been granted to particular individuals with a view to meet the exigencies of work. The Rule does not restrict the exercise of power not only to individual cases, but in certain circumstances it could apply to a particular situation. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by relaxing the rule in favour of the respondents for the simple reason the petitioner belongs to Category-5 of Division-I posts and the respondents belong to Category-6 of Division-I. Their nature of duties are totally different. That apart, the petitioner cannot challenge the concession given to the respondents nearly two decades back by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice exempting them under Rule 23 of the Rules from possessing a pass certificate in 180 wpm Shorthand. A Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Minieral Development Corporation (5) AIR 1990 SC 371 at para 6 held thus:- "6. The main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 and ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial-entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. . . . . . " 28. Settled things cannot be unsettled after a long lapse of time as it seeks to distort the vested rights accrued during the intervening period. The Division Bench decision of this in Ch. V. Subramanya Sarma v. K. Balarama Raju, to which my learned brother is a member (GC,J ), what was observed is only that there could not be any relaxation of basic and essential qualification at time of their initial appointment for a post. In this case there is no such relaxation of essential qualification. It is not that candidates without the knowledge of shorthand or speed are appointed in relaxation of the Rule. In Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India (6) AIR 1970 SC 470 , the Supreme Court at para 35 observed thus:- "35. We are not anxious to throw out petitions on this ground, but we must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years." 29. In RR Verma v. Union of India (7) 1980 SCC 423, at para 4 Supreme Court observed thus:- "4..... Now, very wide as the range covered by the rules is, the rules can never be exhaustive. Unforeseen and complex situations often arise as will be obvious even from a bare perusal of the cases reported in the Law Journals arising out of "service controversies". Now, very wide as the range covered by the rules is, the rules can never be exhaustive. Unforeseen and complex situations often arise as will be obvious even from a bare perusal of the cases reported in the Law Journals arising out of "service controversies". Very often it is found that an all too strict application of a rule works undue hardship on a civil servant, resulting in injustice and inequity, causing disappointment and frustration to the civil servant and finally leading to the defeat of the very objects aimed at by the rules namely efficiency and integrity of civil servants. Hence it is that the Central Government is vested with a reserve power under Rule 3 to deal with unforeseen and unpredictable situations, and to relieve the civil servants from the infliction of undue hardship to do justice and equity....." 30. Exemption once exercised in favour of an individual or a group of persons the same will enure to their benefit. It is nobody's case that due to the exemption granted to the respondents there is any deficiency in service or the petitioner is an affected person. The orders of appointment, orders declaring probation, orders of regularization of services or orders of promotion of the party respondents have not been challenged by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the exemption granted to the respondents. 31. The second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 4, 6, 13, 14 to 18 have not passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers so far, as required under Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules and therefore they are liable to be discharged or reverted. 31. The second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 4, 6, 13, 14 to 18 have not passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers so far, as required under Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules and therefore they are liable to be discharged or reverted. Rule 5 of the Rules which deals with the method of appointment to various posts, relevant to the instant case is Category 4 of Division-I, i.e., Assistant Registrars, reads:- "Category-4 (a) ASSISTANT REGISTRARS (i) By promotion from Category 5 or 6; or (ii) By transfer from among the members of the Category of District Munsifs of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service on tenure basis for a fixed term or terms whose services are placed at the disposal of the Chief Justice by the Governor for such appointment: Provided that the Chief Justice shall have the power to terminate the appointment at any time before expiry of the terms and revert him to his former Service; or by direct recruitment. Note: The members in Categories 5 and 6 shall always hold at least three posts of Assistant Registrars; Provided that in every cycle of three promotions the first two shall be filled from Category 5 and the third promotion from Category 6; Provided further that at any point of time, the strength of promo tees from category-6 shall not exceed 50% of the sanctioned strength in the post of Assistant Registrar save Assistant Registrar (Buildings). " 32. Rule 8(1) (a) of the Rules reads:- "8. Special Qualifications: 1(a) No person shall be eligible for appointment as a full member in Categories 1 to 4 of Division I unless he qualifies himself in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of Probation: Provided that a person who has already passed Part I of the Accounts Test for subordinate officers shall not be required to pass the Accounts Test for Executive Officers. 33. Rule 8 (1) (a) postulates that no officer from categories 5 and 6 shall be eligible for appointment as a Full Member of the posts in Categories 1 to 4 of Division-I unless he qualifies himself in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation or in the extended period of probation. 34. 33. Rule 8 (1) (a) postulates that no officer from categories 5 and 6 shall be eligible for appointment as a Full Member of the posts in Categories 1 to 4 of Division-I unless he qualifies himself in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation or in the extended period of probation. 34. It is relevant to ascertain who is a Full Member as employed in Rule 8 (1) (a). Rule 2 (5) of the Rules defines 'Full Member' reads:- "2 (5) "Full Member" means a member of the service who has been appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the cadre thereof;" 35. As per Rule 2 (5) of the Rules, 'Full Member' means a member of service who has been appointed substantively to a permanent post borne on the cadre thereof. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the party respondents that though the respondents are promoted to Category-4 or Category-3, 2, or 1 of Division-I they are made purely on temporary basis and not as 'Full Members'. Rule 8 (1) (a) directs that no officer from categories 5 and 6 eligible for appointment as a Full Member of the posts in Categories 1 to 4 of Division-I unless he qualifies himself in the Accounts Test for Executive Officers within the period of probation or in the extended period of probation. It is contended that since the respondents are not members within the meaning of 'Full Members" in the said category and they were promoted as a temporary arrangement, Rule 8 (1) (a) is not applicable to them. 36. Rule 16 of the Rules deals with Temporary appointments and promotions reads:- "Rule 16 Temporary appointments and promotions:- (1) Where it is necessary to fill a vacancy in any division, category, subcategory or post in the service and there would be undue delay or administrative inconvenience in appointing a person who is qualified for or entitled to such appointment or a duly qualified person is not available, the appointing authority may appoint any other suitable person temporarily until an appointment is made in accordance with these rules. (2) (a) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service, who is ell titled to promotion under these rules or the case may be, by a candidate qualified to hold the post under the rules. (b) A person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such division, category or post or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such division, category or post." 37. The promotions of officers from category-6 of Division-l christened as promotion purely on temporary basis it impliedly attracts Rule 16 of the Rules. When once they are temporarily promoted, they cannot be regarded as probationers in such division, category as envisaged in Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules. The question of passing Accounts Test by the respondents within the period of probation or within the extended period comes only when they are considered as 'Full Members' in the appointed or promoted posts. That apart, that promotion of respondents 2 to 20 as Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars has nothing to do with the petitioner, since there are two channels of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, i.e., Section Officers/ Court Officers/Scrutiny Officers and Accounts Officers falling under Category 5, and Court Masters/ Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and Registrars falling under Category-6. In a unit of three promotional posts, the first two posts are to be filled up from category 5 and the third promotional post has to be filled from members belonging to category 6. Since the petitioner is working as Section Officer falling under category 5, perhaps he cannot have grievance to the promotions effected from the members belonging to category 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 38. Coming to the facts in WP No.3855 of 2010, the petitioner along with 25 others submitted a representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 4-1-2010. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed. 38. Coming to the facts in WP No.3855 of 2010, the petitioner along with 25 others submitted a representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 4-1-2010. The gist of the representation is that the 2nd respondent who was appointed as Examiner in the year 1985, the post held by him was upgraded to that of Section Officer (Protocol) and due to the promotion given to him, the petitioner who is senior to him, became junior to him in the category of Section Officer, a post included in Category-5 of Division-I of the Rules. The 1st respondent by order dated 21-1-2010 communicated the decision of the Hon'ble Chief Justice rejecting the representation dated 4-1-2010. 39. 1st Respondent-Registrar General of the High Court filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the 1st (sic. 2nd) respondent having been appointed as Examiner in the year 1985, his services have been utilized in Protocol Department of the High Court and in the year 2000 he made a representation keeping in view of the duties discharged by him in the Protocol Section to upgrade his post to that of the Section Officer (Protocol). In view of the onerous duties in the Protocol Section, his request to upgrade the post was considered by the First Committee of the Hon'ble Judges and resolved to address the Government of Andhra Pradesh for up gradation of the post of Examiner in the Protocol Section as Section Officer (Protocol). Accordingly the Government issued GO Ms.No.400, dated 26-3-2002 and upgraded the post of Examiner to the cadre of Section Officer (Protocol). 40. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 41. It is a case where keeping in view the onerous nature of duties being discharged by the 2nd respondent in the Protocol Section since his appointment in the year 1985, the Hon'ble Chief Justice on representation made by him referred the matter to the First Committee of the Hon'ble Judges and the Committee on consideration of the matter resolved to address the Government for upgardation of the post to that of Section Officer (Protocol). It is part of the record that the working pattern of protocol sections of other High Courts was called for and on receipt of replies from nearly five High Courts, a resolution was passed to address the Government to upgrade the post. 42. The Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of the powers under Rule 23 of the Rules passed order promoting the 2nd respondent to the post of Section Officer (Protocol) pursuant to the orders passed by the Government in GO Ms.No.400, dated 26-3-2002. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent is further promoted as Assistant Registrar (Protocol) on 25-3-2010. 43. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was straightaway promoted as Section Officer contrary to the Rules is baseless and not sustainable. The Writ petition is also liable to fail on the ground of laches as after more than seven years from the date of promotion given to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner and others seek to question the same, which in fact was given to him after obtaining information from other High Courts and after the Government issued GO upgrading the post to that of Section Officer (Protocol). 44. In the result, WP No.3834 of 2010 and NP No.3835 of 2010 are dismissed. No order is to costs.