Judgment :- Tapen Sen, J. These 9 (Nine) Writ Petitioners had appeared in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examinations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Examinations) for being appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the West Bengal Judicial Service pursuant to an advertisement published by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in the Newspapers on 31.1.2009 as contained in Annexure-P/1. In the said advertisement itself, it was intimated that :- (a) the number of vacancies arising in 2009 was 26 (General-19, BC-02, SC-03, ST-01 and PH-01); (b) the number of vacancies which may arise due to death, voluntary retirement, resignation or unwillingness to join the service by selected candidates was 37 (General27, BC-03, SC-04, ST-02 and PH-01). 2. The Petitioners have stated that the closing date for receipt of the Applications was 2.3.2009. The Petitioners, being eligible, duly applied before the said West Bengal Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 7) (hereinafter referred to as the PSC) and they also duly appeared in the said examinations which were held on 10.5.2009. After having cleared the preliminary examinations successfully, they were then asked to appear in the final written examinations which were held between 1.7.2009 and 10.7.2009. The final result was published in the Website of the PSC and by a letter dated 30.11.2009, the PSC informed the Secretary-in-charge to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department that 25 candidates as recommended by the PSC from the select list against 25 out of 26 clear vacancies (General-19, BC-02, SC-03, ST01 and PH-01) were being forwarded/communicated and that the names had been arranged in Order of merit. 3. The PSC also recommended the names of 36 candidates from the select list against 36 vacancies out of 37 (General-27, BC-03, SC-04, ST-02 and PH-01). 4. They also mentioned that in both the categories, no recommendations could be made against the physically handicapped vacancy of one for want of qualified PH candidates. 5. Upon a perusal of the recommended names of the two categories above, it would be evident that against the 26 vacancies for which 25 names had been recommended, the PSC placed the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 at Sl. Nos. 19 to 25 and against the 37 vacancies for which 36 candidates had been recommended, it placed the Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 thereof. 6. 1 to 7 at Sl. Nos. 19 to 25 and against the 37 vacancies for which 36 candidates had been recommended, it placed the Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 thereof. 6. By reason of the said letter, the PSC requested the Judicial Department to verify the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of the original Certificates/documents filed by them. It was also informed that the medical examinations and antecedents of the candidates had however not been conducted and therefore appropriate action in that regard was requested to be taken. 7. It is stated that on the basis of the aforementioned letter dated 30.11.2009, the medical verifications of the selected candidates were completed on 21.12.2009 and, upon completion of other formalities, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Principal Secretary-in-charge, Judicial Department and the Secretary, Judicial Department respectively), caused a Notification to be published on 21.1.2010 (Annexure-P/4) whereby and whereunder 25 candidates out of the first category were appointed under List-A (in respect of the clear vacancies of 26) and a further two candidates were also appointed under List-B (in respect of the vacancies that may arise out of resignation and died in harness). 8. Upon a perusal of the aforementioned Notification, it would appear that the names of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 were placed under List-A between Sl. Nos. 19 and 25 and the names of the Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 were enlisted under List-B at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that the said Notification dated 21.1.2010 was forwarded to each of the persons mentioned therein including the Petitioners with an instruction that they should all await receipt of Order about their posting from the Registrar (Judicial Service), Appellate Side, Calcutta High Court. 9. According to the Petitioners, the moment such an instruction was given that they should await Orders of posting, a right accrued in their favour to join on the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) but in spite of a long lapse of time and till date, no Orders of posting were issued in favour of these Petitioners. 9. According to the Petitioners, the moment such an instruction was given that they should await Orders of posting, a right accrued in their favour to join on the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) but in spite of a long lapse of time and till date, no Orders of posting were issued in favour of these Petitioners. The Petitioners have also relied upon subsequent Notifications dated 19.7.2010 and 15.11.2010 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department regularising the appointment of the Petitioners as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the West Bengal Judicial Service on temporary basis until further Orders in terms of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Judicial (Condition of Services) Rules 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 2004 Rules). In the said Notifications, candidates were informed that they will have to undergo the prescribed training and pass in the prescribed departmental examinations and their confirmation would depend on their passing the said examinations and on their general fitness in terms of Rule 10 of the said 2004 Rules. 10. According to the Petitioners, the Calcutta High Court (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) has caused grave injustice to them by not issuing posting Orders till now in spite of the fact that they are eligible and ready and willing to join the service after receipt of the Notifications of regularisation dated 19.7.2010 and 15.11.2010 stated above. Their further grievance is that the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 (The High Court and its Registrar General and Registrar, Judicial Service) have not issued posting Orders in favour of the Petitioners although they have a clear vested/accrued right to join on the post concerned and non-issuance of posting Orders amounts to a serious violation of their right to public employment. The Petitioners have further stated that on 31.3.2010, posting Orders were given to 18 candidates but the rest of the appointees who were appointed by Notification dated 21.1.2010 (meaning thereby, the Petitioners) have been left out and therefore such action is absolutely illegal. They have also stated that in the meantime and during the process of selection and appointment, two serving Officers have vacated their posts by death and resignation and therefore those posts have fallen vacant. They have also stated that in the meantime and during the process of selection and appointment, two serving Officers have vacated their posts by death and resignation and therefore those posts have fallen vacant. Their further grievance is that in the meantime, the West Bengal Judicial Service Examinations, 2010 were notified on 15.4.2010 and preliminary examinations were held on 6.6.2010 whereafter final written examinations were held on 24.7. 2010 and the results published on 26.10.2010. They have stated that the interviews were also held from 22.11.2010 to 8.12.2010. They have expressed an apprehension that appointment letters is likely to be issued and once the select list for the said examinations of 2010 are published, the appointees of 2009 such as the Petitioners who are still awaiting for their postings, would be seriously prejudiced and therefore, no appointment letters can be given in favour of the selected candidates of 2010 without first giving posting Orders to the present Petitioners. 11. The Petitioners have also referred to the case of Mallick Mazhar Sultan in which the Hon’ble Apex Court had laid down guidelines for selection and appointments of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in all the States of the Country in which the State of West Bengal was also a party. The Petitioners have submitted that it was therefore incumbent upon the Respondent-authorities and particularly the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 to complete the process of appointments of the 2009 examinations before commencing with the process of selection of the 2010 examinations. Having not done so, their action is not only illegal but also in violation of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallick Mazhar’s case. The Petitioners have stated that in reply to an Application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Deputy Registrar (Administration)-cum-Public Information Officer, High Court, Appellate Side informed that in terms of the Notification dated 21.1.2010, 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who had appeared in the 2009 examinations, were given appointment letters out of which 18 (eighteen) had been given posting Orders vide Notification dated 29.3.2010. However in reply to the question as to whether the remaining appointees would be allowed to join and if so by what time, the Deputy Registrar (Administration) answered by saying that the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Administrative Committee of the High Court for consideration and decision. 12. However in reply to the question as to whether the remaining appointees would be allowed to join and if so by what time, the Deputy Registrar (Administration) answered by saying that the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Administrative Committee of the High Court for consideration and decision. 12. In this Writ Petition, 5 (five) persons have joined as Applicants in G.A. No. 1293 of 2011 and they were also heard on 4.5.2011 when Mr. Jaydeep Kar appeared on their behalf and prayed that they be allowed to be impleaded as Respondents and that the interim Order granted by this Court on 14.3.2011 be modified. Let it be recorded here at this stage, that on 14.3.2011, this Court had passed an interim Order to the effect that since the Writ Petition has been filed by 9 persons who had been appointed and who were waiting for their postings, it will be expedient in the interests of justice to direct that 9 posts be kept vacant awaiting final result of the Writ Petition. It appears that the said interim Order was taken up in Appeal vide APOT No. 135 of 2011 with GA No. 983 of 2011. The said Appeal was however dismissed by Order dated 4.4.2011. These Applicants had appeared in the 2010 examinations and on 21.12.2010, a merit list was published which included their names and the Applicant Nos. 1,2 and 3 were placed at Sl. Nos. 9,10 and 11 among the General category candidates while the Applicant No. 4 ranked 5th amongst the ST candidates and the Applicant No. 5 ranked 3rd amongst the SC candidates. According to these Applicants, they have been selected in the 2010 examinations and the Petitioners were selected in the 2009 examinations. Two separate Advertisements for each of the examinations were published. Two separate and independent selection processes undertaken, two separate set of vacancies notified and both the selection processes constitute two separate zones of consideration. According to them, the vacancies in respect of the two selection processes cannot be clubbed together as the selected candidates of the 2009 examinations belong to one zone of consideration while the selected candidates of the 2010 examinations belong to another zone of consideration and therefore, the Petitioners cannot be appointed against the 2010 vacancies. These Five Intervener Applicants were therefore also heard along with the Writ Petitioners and the Respondents and Judgment was reserved on 4.5.2011. These Five Intervener Applicants were therefore also heard along with the Writ Petitioners and the Respondents and Judgment was reserved on 4.5.2011. 13. In the background of the aforementioned facts, the Petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 (the High Court and its Authorities) to issue posting Orders in their favour and have also prayed that the Respondents be restrained from issuing posting Orders to the successful candidates of the 2010 examinations without first issuing posting Orders to them. 14. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which has been duly sworn by Shri Murari Prasad Srivastava, the Registrar General of the High Court. In the said Affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated, amongst others, that the prayer in relation to giving posting to the 9 (nine) Petitioners has already been decided by the Full Court. It has further been stated that the Administrative Committee held a meeting on 6.12.2010 to consider different agendas including Agenda No. 2 which was in relation to consideration of a DO letter No. 92 dated 24.11.2010 written by Shri Rabilal Maitra, Minister-in-charge, Law and Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal and which was addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court. The aforementioned letter was produced by Mr. Pratik Dhar, the learned Counsel appearing for the State and therefore this Court, at this stage itself, would like to quote the same because it has to consider as to how and in what manner the Administrative Committee of the High Court dealt with the same. The said letter reads as follows:- “D.O. No. 92(L)MJL/2010 Dated, Kolkata, 24.11.2010 Dear Hon’ble Chief Justice, I would like to take some of your valuable time in communicating the pitiable plight of 9 (nine) successful candidates of the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2009, in not receiving the appropriate posting orders from this Hon’ble Court consequent upon the issuance of appointment letter to them by the State Government. the said candidates have come before me repeatedly and sought my intervention to bail out them from this precarious situation. The Hon’ble High Court was suitably informed of the situation vide this Department’s Memo. No. 488-J. dated 1st January, 2010. the said candidates have come before me repeatedly and sought my intervention to bail out them from this precarious situation. The Hon’ble High Court was suitably informed of the situation vide this Department’s Memo. No. 488-J. dated 1st January, 2010. Due to non-receipt of posting orders from your end by the said successful candidates, the Government faces embarrassment and shares their anxiety and I hope that this may be appreciated from your end also. Hence you kind intervention in the matter of issuance of posting orders in favour of the said candidates is solicited. With Regards, Yours sincerely, (Rabi Lal Maitra) Hon’ble Mr. Jainarayan Patel, Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta (Quoted) 15. While dealing with the said letter, the Administrative Committee discussed the same. It was observed that in the earlier meeting held on 13.1.2010, it had been resolved that the Judicial Department of the Govt. of West Bengal be asked to offer appointment letters in respect of only 18 candidates out of the select list against 18 existing vacancies and the remaining 9 candidates be kept on the waiting list for their consideration awaiting vacancy if any, arising out of the death, voluntary retirement and resignation of the existing Officers or in the event of there being any unwillingness on the part of any of the selected candidates to join the service. It was also indicated in the said Resolution that the candidates who had been included in the said waiting list would have no right to appointment and accordingly, by a Notification dated 31.3.2010, 18 (eighteen) candidates, according to the merit list and as recommended by the PSC, were forwarded and placed in different Districts for training. In the Resolution dated 6.12.2010 and based on the aforementioned set of facts, the Administrative Committee observed as follows:- “Therefore, it is clear that the High Court issued posting Orders on probation in respect of only 18 (eighteen) candidates keeping the rest 9 (nine) candidates in the waiting list for filling in future vacancies, if any, arising as aforesaid. But it appears that the Judicial Department has regularised the appointment of 20 (twenty) candidates and extended the tenure of appointment of the remaining 7(seven) candidates. But it appears that the Judicial Department has regularised the appointment of 20 (twenty) candidates and extended the tenure of appointment of the remaining 7(seven) candidates. In view of the fact that the Resolution dated 13.1.2010 passed by the Administrative Committee has been approved by the Full Court, the additional 9(nine) candidates who have been issued appointment letters by the State Government, cannot be considered for posting Orders being issued in their favour.” (Quoted) 16. The Registrar General of the High Court was directed to inform the Minister-in-charge who had written the letter. The said Affidavit-in-opposition further discloses that the decision of the Administrative Committee taken on 6th December, 2010 was subsequently approved by the Full Court upon circulation and in the absence of any view to the contrary from the other Judges of this Court. 17. The Affidavit-in-opposition has further disclosed that the selection/recruitment process which was undertaken for the year 2009 has already been closed and thereafter the process for selection for the year 2010 is on the verge of completion. It has further been stated that on completion of the selection process of the 2009 examinations, it was noticed that actually there were only 18 vacancies which were available and this fact was duly conveyed to the Government but the concerned Department did not ascertain the actual position and without doing so, issued the Notification appointing 27 candidates in the rank of Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Affidavit-in-opposition further states that under such circumstances, if the remaining 9 candidates of that list has to be given posting then, the vacancies that may be available for 2010 will have to be proportionately reduced and this will be a wrong action. The Affidavit-in-opposition further states that while issuing the Notification dated 21.1.2010 appointing 27 candidates named therein, the concerned Department of the Government did not bother to consult the High Court Administration for purposes of ascertaining the actual number of vacancies for giving appointment and posting. In fact, the Judicial Department of the Govt. of West Bengal as well as the PSC did not even act in cooperation and coordination with the High Court on its Administrative Side although the Govt. In fact, the Judicial Department of the Govt. of West Bengal as well as the PSC did not even act in cooperation and coordination with the High Court on its Administrative Side although the Govt. was fully aware of the actual number of vacancies which was available but in spite thereof, they issued the Notification stating therein that the candidates in List-A were from regular vacancies while those in List-B were from the vacancies arising out of resignation/died-in-harness category. The High Court has further stated that it was the Government which, on its own, informed the candidates that they should wait for the receipt of posting Orders. The High Court Administration could not act on such basis because there were no vacancies beyond 18 (eighteen) and therefore, posting Orders were issued in respect of only 18 (eighteen) candidates. The High Court has further gone on record by saying that the Judicial Department, in spite of all these facts, issued the two subsequent Notifications dated 19.7.2010 and 15.11.2010 thereby creating total complications in the matter inasmuch if the 9 candidates were accommodated, the sanctioned strength for the rank of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) would have exceeded. It has further been stated that under these circumstances, the appointment of the Petitioners by the Notification referred to above were improper as there was failure on the part of the Government in its Judicial Department to ascertain the actual number of the vacancies. 18. The High Court has further stated that the working strength as on 1st January, 2009 was 349. One Officer joined the post and therefore the working strength became 350. In the meantime, on 22.5.2009, 42 Officers in the rank of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were promoted on appointment to the post of Civil Judges (Senior Division) and therefore the working strength as on 22.5.2009 became 308 (349 + 1 - 42). Subsequently one Officer died and another resigned in 2009 and therefore the working strength stood at 306. In the meantime, the Judicial Department caused two Notifications to be published declaring the appointment of 51 candidates (37+14) named therein although no vacancy was available for recruitment during the year 2008 but in spite thereof, the Judicial Department declared the appointment of 51 candidates of the year 2008 in the vacancies due to the increased cadre strength which were available for the subsequent year. In paragraph-8(g) of the Affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that the cadres strength has been raised from 357 to 375 and therefore the actual vacancies were calculated at 26. 19. On 28.10.2009, the Administrative Committee held a meeting and observed that there was no effective consultation and therefore it was resolved that the State Government be informed about the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the aforesaid 2004 Rules and also resolved that mere sending of the merit list was not proper consultation with the High Court. It has further been stated that since the sanctioned strength was 375 and working strength was 357, therefore there were only 18 vacancies as on the date of recruitment for the year 2009 and therefore any appointment above 18 was totally irregular. 20. An Application for modification/amendment of the Writ Petition has been filed wherein prayer has been made at prargraph-8 therein that the Administrative Committee Resolutions dated 28.10.2009, 13.1.2010 and 6.12.2010 are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Articles 233 and 234 as well as contrary to the 2004 Rules and accordingly, they have prayed for setting aside and quashing the said Resolutions. 21. An Affidavit-in-opposition to the said Application for amendment opposing the same has been filed reiterating the fact that the Petitioners are under a total misconception and that there were no effective consultation. 22. It is not necessary to deal with the Affidavit-in-reply since the paragraphs contained therein are mere repetitions and reframing of what have already been stated in the Writ Petition itself and therefore dealing with the same once again would only amount to repeating the same things over and over again. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, in reply to the submissions made and recorded in paragraph-7 of the Affidavit-in-opposition submitted that the argument of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the effect that before issuing the Notification of appointment, the concerned department did not bother to consult the High Court Administration, is totally misconceived inasmuch as Article 234 of the Constitution of India would clearly show that consultations are necessary to be made only at the stage of declaration of the vacancy and not at the stage of issuance of the Notification of appointments. Article 234 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:- “234. Article 234 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:- “234. Recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service.-Appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.” (Quoted) 24. Such a submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is not acceptable to this Court. Article 234 clearly mentions that appointments of persons other than District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with the Rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the PSC and the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the State. In other words, the appointments are to be made in accordance with the State Rules but all such appointments must necessarily be made after consultations with the High Courts as well as the with the PSC. In other words, before appointment Notifications are issued, there must be an effective consultation. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the need for such consultations because in the absence thereof, problems such as the one involved in this Writ Petition would always arise. The High Court is the only Institution which is aware of the vacancies and if the Government proceeds to issue appointment Notifications to candidates beyond the vacancy position, then they are themselves to be blamed and not the High Court. The Rules contemplated under Article 234 has been brought on record by the Petitioners themselves in their Application for modification. The said Rules are called the “West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules 2004”. Rule 8 of the said Rules lays down that the appointments to any of the posts mentioned in Rule 6(1) (a) [i.e. Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates/Metropolitan Magistrates/Municipal Magistrates/Magistrates of the Juvenile Board], shall be made by the Governor in accordance with the “West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules” after consultation with the High Court and the Commission. Thus, appointments will be made only after consultation with the High Court and the act of appointments can only be made on the basis of issuance of a Notification of appointment. Consequently such arguments of the Petitioners are rejected. 25. Thus, appointments will be made only after consultation with the High Court and the act of appointments can only be made on the basis of issuance of a Notification of appointment. Consequently such arguments of the Petitioners are rejected. 25. Let it be recorded that on 28.10.2009, the Administrative Committee, while considering the posting of Judicial Officers in the rank of Civil Judges (Junior Division) who were selected on the basis of the 2008 examinations noticed that there was no effective consultations with the High Court before issuance of appointment Orders and without such consultations, appointments were made merely in terms of the merit determined by the West Bengal Public Service Commission. This attitude was viewed seriously by the Administrative Committee which resolved on 28.10.2009 that “the State Government be specifically informed about the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004, which requires that the appointment to the post as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 shall be made after consultation with the High Court. In the present case, the State Government has failed to consult with the High Court before issuing the orders of appointment. Mere sending of a copy of the merit list to the High Court and without waiting for explicit views of the High Court if appointment has been given, that cannot be said to be proper consultation with the High Court within the meaning of the rule.” (Quoted) It is therefore surprising to notice that in spite of such a Resolution having been sent to the Government after approval by the Full Court, the concerned department of the government again proceeded to violate the provisions of Rule 8 of the 2004 Rules referred to above and also proceeded to ignore the mandate of Article 234 of the Constitution of India and issued the appointment Notification dated 21.1.2010 by which it proceeded to appoint 25 persons under List-A and 2 persons under List-B misleading everyone into believing that the names contained under List-A were for clear vacancies and those under List-B are for vacancies arising out of resignation and/or dying in harness category. They totally ignored the fact the 51 vacancies of 2008 were given appointment in the vacancies of 2009 and therefore there could not have been more than 18 vacancies in 2009 and there could also not have been future/anticipated vacancies at that time. As a result, the Minister-in-charge should not have proceeded to show extreme eagerness and write a letter to the Chief Justice on 24.11.2010. His letter amounts to unwarranted interference with the administration of the High Court and it also amounts to an unconstitutional conduct not contemplated by the Constitution of India. Such letters should have been avoided but even then, the High Court, in all fairness, considered the same in the meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 6.12.2010 and clearly recorded that there being no vacancies, the High Court was compelled to issue posting Orders to only 18 (eighteen) persons and also made it clear that the additional 9 (nine) candidates could not have been issued the appointment letters by the State Government and therefore they cannot be considered for posting. 26. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the submissions on behalf of the Petitioners that once appointment Notifications were issued, the Petitioners acquired vested/accrued rights and therefore the High Court was obliged to issue posting Orders under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, must be rejected. If the appointments itself were irregular being contrary to the provisions of Article 234 read with Rule 8 of the 2004 Rules referred to above, then the appointments of the Petitioners are totally illegal. They are also beyond the vacancy and as such there is no obligation at all on the part of the High Court to issue posting Orders in their favour. The other submission to the effect that by keeping on hold the posting of these 9 Petitioners, the High Court has actually violated the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallick Mazhar Sultan, is equally misconceived and is rejected. 27. As a consequence, the additional prayers made by the Petitioners in the Amendment Application for setting aside the Decisions/Resolutions of the Administrative Committee are not at all maintainable and the same are accordingly, also rejected. Let it be recorded that the orders of posting of 18 persons have already been acted upon and they are all undergoing training. 27. As a consequence, the additional prayers made by the Petitioners in the Amendment Application for setting aside the Decisions/Resolutions of the Administrative Committee are not at all maintainable and the same are accordingly, also rejected. Let it be recorded that the orders of posting of 18 persons have already been acted upon and they are all undergoing training. In this context, some of the observations of the Administrative Committee in the Minutes dated 6th December, 2010 would be worth taking note of and which says that …………….“it was also made clear that the candidates included in the said Waiting List would have no right to appointment. Accordingly, by this Court’s Notification No. 1174 A dated 31.3.2010, 18 (eighteen) candidates according to the merit list as recommended by the West Bengal Public Service Commission by their letter No. A-176/PSC(A) dated 30.11.2009 duly forwarded by the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, were placed in different Districts for receiving training. Therefore, it is clear that the High Court issued posting Orders on probation in respect of only 18 (eighteen) candidates keeping the 9 (nine) candidates in the waiting list for filling in future vacancies, if any, arising as aforesaid.” (Quoted) 28. Consequently the Petitioners have no right to say that they must be given posting because their appointments, being beyond the vacancy position are illegal and also because their appointments were made without consulting the High Court and therefore, the same is wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 29. Consequently it is not necessary for this Court to refer to the other arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners. 30. For the same reasons, this Court is unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Pratik Dhar appearing for the State and who had attempted to justify that there were effective consultations at different stages. They have not filed any counter affidavit in this case but have merely handed over some documents which do not establish the contentions to the effect that there were effective consultation with the High Court at the time of issuing the appointment Notification. What has been handed over by Mr. Dhar are a photocopy of Annexure-R2 which has already been brought on record by the High Court in its Affidavit-in-opposition. He has also handed over a copy of a letter dated 16.1.2009 addressed to the Secretary, Public Service Commission and written by the Secretary-in-charge, Govt. What has been handed over by Mr. Dhar are a photocopy of Annexure-R2 which has already been brought on record by the High Court in its Affidavit-in-opposition. He has also handed over a copy of a letter dated 16.1.2009 addressed to the Secretary, Public Service Commission and written by the Secretary-in-charge, Govt. of West Bengal, Judicial Department which merely says that it is an estimate of vacancies to be filled up pursuant to the 2009 examinations but it is not a document to explain the point that there was no consultation prior to the issuance of the appointment Notification with the High Court. Similarly the other documents brought on record also do not prove consultations with the High Court at the stage of issuing the appointment Notification. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence of this Judgment, no further order is required to be passed on the intervener application being GA No. 1293 of 2011 as those 5 (five) Applicants belong to a totally different and separate selection process of 2010 and they cannot suffer by reason of a set of persons whose appointments are itself illegal and void ab initio. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no Order as to costs. As a consequence of this Judgment, the interim Order granted earlier on 14th March, 2011 is hereby vacated. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.