Per Massodi, J. 1. The Letters Patent Appeals on hand are directed against the writ Court judgment dated 22nd April, 2010 in SWP no 1751/2008, titled Rajesh Kumar and ors, v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and ors, whereby the writ court allowed the writ petition and quashed High Court order No. 667 dated 24th November, 2008, to the extent it related to adjustment of respondents 3 to 13 in the writ petition, as Head Assistants in their own pay and grade. The facts relevant to the disposal of the writ appeal may be summarized in the first instance. 2. The petitioners and respondents 3 to 13 are members of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff. On 24th November, 2008, respondents 3 to 13 serving as Senior Assistants in the grade of Rs. 4000-6000, were adjusted as Head Assistants in their own pay and grade till further orders. Their colleagues--respondents 1 to 8 herein, serving as Senior Assistants, assailed the High Court order No. 667 dated 24-11-2008 to the extent it related to "adjustment" of the appellants in their own pay and grade as Head Assistants, primarily on the ground that the appellants did not fulfill eligibility criteria laid down in High Court order No. 579 dated 24-10-2008. The writ petitioners/ respondents case before the writ Court was that in terms of the aforementioned High Court order, the minimum qualification required for the post of Head Assistant is graduation from a "recognized University" and that none of the appellants had a Bachelors degree to his credit. The writ petitioners/respondents insisted that though the Chief Justice in terms of High Court order No. 579 dated 24-10-2008 was competent to relax the qualification on his own or on the recommendation of a Committee, yet as the power was restricted to the officers/officials who had made their entry into the service on or before 25th April, 1987, such relaxation could not be made in favour of the appellants, who had admittedly entered service after 25th April, 1987. 3. The writ petition was opposed on the ground that the order impugned was made by the Acting Chief Justice on the recommendations of the Judges Committee for smooth functioning of the Registry and not to confer any rights on the appellants. 3. The writ petition was opposed on the ground that the order impugned was made by the Acting Chief Justice on the recommendations of the Judges Committee for smooth functioning of the Registry and not to confer any rights on the appellants. It is pleaded that as the appellants were senior to the writ petitioners, they were considered for adjustment on stop gap basis till the posts were filled up by eligible and suitable candidates and they were to be considered for their regularization/appointment to the post of Head Assistants only after they would attain the requisite qualification/experience prescribed for the posts. The appellants in their reply to the writ petition insisted that in terms of Rule 4 of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968, the appointments to the Staff of High Court including promotions are to be made by the Chief Justice with the power to delegate any of the powers other than power of appointment/promotion of gazetted officers, to the Registrar or any Judge of the High Court and in terms of Rule 6, the Chief Justice has the power to lay down the qualification of the members of the service and determine the mode of recruitment. It is pleaded that the Chief Justice in the background of the rule position is competent to relax any condition for recruitment/promotion as he may deemed fit in the circumstances of a case and thus competent to order adjustment of the appellants as Head Assistants in their own pay and grade, subject to filling of the posts of Head Assistants by eligible candidates. The appellants further contended that in terms of Circular no. 13, 1980 dated 26th March, 1980, 25% of the posts are to be filled up by promotions of matriculate employees and that the appellants stand promoted as Head Assistants on the basis of their seniority and having regard to the quota fixed in terms of Circular 13, 1980 dated 26th March, 1980. It is pleaded that as a matter of practice observed for long in the High Court, the officials with less than prescribed qualification prescribed under High Court order no. 579, have been promoted even up to the rank of Joint Registrar and there is no reason to depart from said practice in case of the appellants. It is pleaded that as a matter of practice observed for long in the High Court, the officials with less than prescribed qualification prescribed under High Court order no. 579, have been promoted even up to the rank of Joint Registrar and there is no reason to depart from said practice in case of the appellants. The appellants also oppose the writ petition on the ground that the High Court Order no. 579 dated 24.10.2008 lays down the guidelines for direct recruitment and not for promotion and thus was not to govern promot-ions in questions. 4. The writ court on perusal of the pleadings and the stand projected by the parties spotted following issues for determination:- i. "Whether adjustment of respondents Nos. 3 to 13 against the post of Head Assistant affects any enforceable right of the petitioners entitling them to seek Judicial Review thereof? ii. In case question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative, whether the High Court order No. 667 dated 24.11.2008, in so far as it pertains to the adjustment of respondent Nos. 3 to 13, was justified and sustainable? iii. Whether Lord Acting Chief Justice, possessed the power to relax the Rules, and if so, whether the impugned order had been issued in relaxation of the Rules?" 5. The writ court answered all the three questions in favour of the writ petitioners/respondents and against the appellants. The writ court held that the promotion of appellants to the post of Head Assistants affect the petitioners right to consideration, entitling them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court; that the adjustment of respondents 3 to 13 was unjustified and against the Rules and that the High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 does not vest absolute power in the Chief Justice to relax the qualification but is exercisable in case of only those officers/officials, who had entered the service before April 25, 1987. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the High Court Order No. 667 dated 24th November, 2008, to the extent it related to the adjustment of appellants as Head Assistants was quashed. 6. The official and private respondents in the writ petition have filed two separate Appeals (LPASW No. 45/2010 and LPASW No. 84/2010) to challenge the writ court Judgment dated 22nd April, 2010. 6. The official and private respondents in the writ petition have filed two separate Appeals (LPASW No. 45/2010 and LPASW No. 84/2010) to challenge the writ court Judgment dated 22nd April, 2010. The writ Court Judgment is challenged on the grounds that the Judgment has the affect of negating the special status of Chief Justice under Section 229 of the Constitution of India and Section 108 of the Constitution of J&K. The aforesaid constitutional provisions, it is insisted, do not only confer the power of making appointments of officers and servants of High Court but also to make rules for regulating the conditions of service of such officers and servants. It is contended that in terms of J&K High Court staff (condition of Service) Rules 1968, made in exercise of power under the Constitution, all appointments of Staff of the High Court including promotions are to be made by the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice given further power to lay down conditions of service of Staff of the High Court. The Chief Justice in the said backdrop, according to appellants, is competent to relax the qualification or the experience prescribed under High Court Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, for appointment by direct recruitment or promotions including for the post of Head Assistants in the High Court Staff. The writ court is said to have erred in holding that the appellants adjustment as Head Assistants was unjustified in terms of High Court Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 and that the Chief Justice is stripped up power to relax the qualification laid down under the aforesaid order in respect of the officers/officials, who entered the service after 25th April, 1987. It is urged that notification No. 76 dated 25th April, 1987 laid down minimum qualification for the direct recruitment and was not in the nature of an order/notification prescribing qualification under the High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968. It is urged that notification No. 76 dated 25th April, 1987 laid down minimum qualification for the direct recruitment and was not in the nature of an order/notification prescribing qualification under the High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968. (It is pointed out that in terms of Rule 6 of High Court (condition of service) Rules 1968, the Chief Justice is empowered to lay down qualification of a member of service from time to time and determination mode of recruitment.) The Chief Justice in the present case having acted on the recommendations made by the Judges Committee, while ordering adjustment of the petitioners against the post of Head Assistants in their own pay and grade, according to appellants, acted well within his powers under Rule 4 J&K High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968. The writ Court, it is urged also failed to appreciate that the appellants were promoted from Class -IV cadre against 25% quota reserved for the cadre in the cadre of Junior Assistants and in terms of Circular No. 13, 1980 dated 26th March, 1980 had a right to be promoted to the next higher position irrespective of their qualification and exclusively on the basis of the seniority. The requirement of graduation according to appellants pertains to 75% of the vacancies set up for direct recruitment. It is next urged that the High Court vide order dated 24.10.2008, promoted other Staff members having only matriculation qualification to their credit, to the post of Deputy Registrars, ignoring the qualification prescribed under High Court order 579 dated 24th October, 2008. 7. We have gone through the Judgment impugned in two appeals and the writ court record. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 108, Constitution of J&K confers the powers of appointment of officers and servants of the High Court on the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court, as Chief Justice may direct. In terms of Section 108(2) conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court are to be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the High Court with the approval of the Governor. In terms of Section 108(2) conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court are to be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the High Court with the approval of the Governor. Section 108 Article 229 corresponds to Constitution of India Article 229 confers power of appointment of officers and the servants of the High Court on the Chief Justice or such other Judge or the officer of the High Court as Chief Justice may direct. However, as regards the condition of service of the officers and servants of the High Court, the power to prescribe rules is given to the Chief Justice of the High Court as also some other Judge of the Court authorized by the Chief Justice in this behalf. The Rules so made require approval of the Governor of the State only to the extent the rules relate to Salaries, allowance, leave or pension of the officers and servants of the High Court. 9. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court with the approval of the Governor has made the J&K High Court Staff (Condition of Service) Rules, 1968. The rules regulate the condition of service of the persons, serving the Staff attached to the High Court including their salaries, allowance, leave and pension. Rules 4 and 6 are relevant to the present controversy may be extracted herein under:- "4. Appointment and promotions. -- All appointments to the Staff of the High Court including promotions shall be made by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may, however, delegate any of the powers of appointment other than those of the Gazetted Officers to the Registrar or to any Judge of the High Court. 6. Qualification and mode of recruitment. -- The Chief Justice may from time to time lay down the qualifications of a member of service and determine the mode of recruitment." 10. The Chief Justice over the time, in exercise of power available under Rule 6 has issued orders prescribing qualification, mode of recruitment and promotion of various posts of the Staff members of the High Court. The High Court Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, is the latest in point of time. 11. The Chief Justice over the time, in exercise of power available under Rule 6 has issued orders prescribing qualification, mode of recruitment and promotion of various posts of the Staff members of the High Court. The High Court Order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, is the latest in point of time. 11. Earlier the Chief Justice in exercise of power under rule 6 of the Rules 1968 vide Order dated 04.07.2001 prescribed the qualification mode of recruitment and promotion of various posts in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The aforesaid order was superceded by the order No. 508 dated 15.10.2008, which again was superceded by the High Court order No. 579 dated 20.10.2008. The mode of appointment/minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Head Assistants--subject matter of the controversy in the present appeals, are prescribed under High Court order 579 dated 24.10.2008 as under:- "Name of the posts: Head Assistant Mode of appointment: By promotion from amongst Senior Assistants on the basis of Seniority cum merit. Minimum qualification: Graduation from a recognized university Minimum experience, if any, Required: Two years Existing pay scale 5000-8000" 12. However, the High Court order No. 579 makes room for relaxation, both as regards the qualification and the experience. The Chief Justice in terms of notes 1 and 2 to the aforesaid order, is given power to relax the requirement of the qualification in favour of the officers, who have joined the High Court service prior to 25th April 1987. As regards the prescribed experience, the power of relaxation is unrestricted and such relaxation may be made in favour of a member of the service irrespective of the date of joining the service. The High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, divides the members of the High Court Service into two groups i.e. the officers/officials, who joined the service before 25th April, 1987 and the officers/officials, who joined the service after the aforesaid date. 25th April, 1987 is taken as a dividing line as prior to 25th April, 1987, the qualification prescribed for entry into service at the level of Junior Assistants was matriculation and above and an officer/official who entered service before the said date, would be debarred from any promotion, that would otherwise come his way only because he did not fulfill the criteria in the order made much after his entry in service. Since such officers/officials were expected to have gained sufficient experience, while working in the High Court Registry for a long period and change in criteria was introduced after they joined the service, it was considered just, fair and proper to confer the power on the Chief Justice to relax the qualification in case of such officers. The officers/ officials, who entered the service after 25th April, 1987, could not come up with a similar argument as after 25lh April, 1987, the qualification at the entry point i.e. at the level of Junior Assistant was prescribed as graduation from a recognized university. Such officers/officials thus could not complain that they were taken unawares and there was change in criteria after they joined the service. 13. The appellants in LPA 45/2010 admittedly entered High Court service after April, 25th 1987. It is also admitted case of the appellants that none of the applicants is graduate and fulfills the eligible criteria as regards qualification for the post of Head Assistant, in terms of High Court order 579 dated 24.10.2008 noticed hereinabove. The appellants in LPA 84/2010, nonetheless vide High Court order no. 667 dated 24.11.2008, impugned in the writ petition, adjusted appellants as Head Assistants in their own pay and grade till further orders. Note 1 and Note 2 at the foot of High Court order No. 667 dated 24.11.2008, whereby the adjustments were made in favour of appellants in LPA No. 45/2010, give us a clear idea about net effect of the impugned order and may be extracted herein under:- i. "Adjustments of the officers/officials on higher posts in their own pay and grade has been made for smooth functioning of the Registry. This arrangement shall remain in force till further orders only. It shall not confer any right on the concerned officers/officials to hold the post on permanent or regular basis they shall, however, be entitled to charge allowance as may be admissible to them under the rules. ii. Adjustment of Ghulam Nabi Malik, Amjad Ahmad Lone, Sr. Scale Stenographer, Kuldeep Raj, Parveen Singh Head Assistants, Sanjeev Kumar, Abdul Rashid, Shakeel Ahmad, Bhawanni Prasad, Molvi Mehboob, Tahira Parveen, Ranjeet Singh, Ravi Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Subash Chander, Kulwant Singh, Gh. Hassan Mir, Nisha Magotra Jr. Assistants on higher posts is only till eligible and suitable candidates are posted on these posts. Scale Stenographer, Kuldeep Raj, Parveen Singh Head Assistants, Sanjeev Kumar, Abdul Rashid, Shakeel Ahmad, Bhawanni Prasad, Molvi Mehboob, Tahira Parveen, Ranjeet Singh, Ravi Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Subash Chander, Kulwant Singh, Gh. Hassan Mir, Nisha Magotra Jr. Assistants on higher posts is only till eligible and suitable candidates are posted on these posts. They can be considered for their regularization/appointment on the higher posts only if they attain qualification and experience prescribed for the post." 14. The impugned order read with Note 1 and Note 2 does not make it mere temporary adjustment for smooth functioning of the Registry, as it is claimed to be in the memoranda of appeals. The adjustment on the higher post entitles the beneficiaries to charge allowance and even makes room for their regularization/appointment on the higher post, if they attain qualification/experience prescribed for the post. The impugned order thus in effect promotes the appellants to the next higher post and is required to satisfy the requirements of High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008. The appellants in LPA no. 45/2010 and 84/2010 can not label the order as mere adjustment without any consequential benefits to the appellants. The condition that the adjustment "shall not confer any right on the concerned officers/officials to hold the post on permanent regular basis" is meaningless and does not change the consequences that to flow out of the order. 15. In view of the stipulation that the appellants shall "be entitled to charge allowance as may be admissible to them under rules" and "they can be considered for their regularization/appointment on higher post only, if they attain qualification and experience prescribed for the post" leave no scope for disagreement with Writ Court that the order impugned in the petition in effect promoted the appellants to the higher post dehors the criteria lay down under High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008. 16. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Chief Justice has power to relax qualification irrespective of the restrictions put on such power in High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 and whether the Chief Justice by accepting the recommendations made by the Judges Committee is to be deemed to have made the relaxation in favour of the appellants. Rule 6 J&K High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968 is couched in wide terms and gives absolute power to the Chief Justice "to lay down the qualifications of members of service and determine the mode of recruitment". The Chief Justice in terms of rule 6 has not only power to lay down the qualification but also to make changes amendments, modifications in such qualifications from time to time and even recast or replace the qualifications so prescribed. However, once the Chief Justice issues the order delineating the mode and manner in which discretion vested under Rule 6 is to be exercised, such order is to be followed and adhere to unless it is withdrawn, revoked and superceded or replaced by new order. So viewed the Chief Justice has to follow and adhere to the High Court order No. 579 Dated 24.10.2008. It would be irrational to presume that the Chief Justice can ignore High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, even when it is in force, and fall back upon Rule 6 to make relaxation in qualification in disregard of High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008. So viewed even if there is recommendation from the Judges Committee for that matter from the Registry to relax qualification or experience in violation of High Court order No. 579 Dated 24.10.2008, such a relaxation cannot be made in exercise of powers under Rule 6 J&K High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968 as long as High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 is in place. It further needs to be clarified that in the present case as noticed by learned writ court there was no specific recommendation from the Judges Committee for relaxation of qualification in favour of the appellants. From our discussion, it emerges that neither the Chief Justice has power to relax qualification or experience in disregard of High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 nor was any relaxation as a matter of fact made in favour of the appellants. 17. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeals are bereft of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 18. From our discussion, it emerges that neither the Chief Justice has power to relax qualification or experience in disregard of High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 nor was any relaxation as a matter of fact made in favour of the appellants. 17. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeals are bereft of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 18. Before parting with the Judgment we find it necessary to point out that as per the available record the Chief Justice for the first time vide order dated 04.07.2001, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 6 J&K High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968, while prescribing the qualification and mode of recruitment for the appointments and promotion of various posts in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir laid down graduation as qualification at the entry level. The advertisement notice dated April 25, 1987 was merely a notice inviting applications from candidates eligible as per the criteria laid down therein for the post of Junior Assistant and not an order made by the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under rule 6 of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968. It is required to be seen whether 25th April, 1987 or 4th July, 2001, in the said background is to be treated as dividing line as regards relaxation in qualification for various posts enumerated in High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008. 19. Needless to mention that 25th April, 1987 is taken as dividing line in the aforementioned High Court Order on the premise that recruitment rules, on said date, witnessed change in qualification at the entry level, prescribed in exercise of powers under Rule 6 of Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (condition of service) Rules 1968. However, as long as 25th April, 1987 is the prescribed cut off date in terms of High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, it is to be adhered to while exercising power of relaxation in qualification. The Chief Justice may, however, in light of observation made above, examine the matter and redefine the power to order relaxation in qualification. However, as long as 25th April, 1987 is the prescribed cut off date in terms of High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008, it is to be adhered to while exercising power of relaxation in qualification. The Chief Justice may, however, in light of observation made above, examine the matter and redefine the power to order relaxation in qualification. It needs not emphasis that the Chief Justice having been vested with the power in terms of Rule 6 to prescribe qualification "from time to time" may any time revoke, alter, modify and amend the High Court order No. 579 dated 24.10.2008 to prescribe the limits of the power to make relaxation in qualification or/and prescribed experience.