Judgment I. Mahanty, J. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner-Haladhar Dash seeking to challenge the promotion given to Opposite Party No.4, namely, Gajendra Behera to the post of Superintendent Level-II from the post of Senior Assistant vide Notification dated 25.7.1995 under Annexure-2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner joined in the service as L.D.Assistant in the establishment of Orissa High Court on 26.10.1970 and was promoted to the post of Grade-II Assistant in the year 1976, Sri Gajendra Behera (Opposite Party No.4) joined in the establishment of Orissa High Court as L.D.Assistant on 4.5.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade-I Assistant and Opposite Party No.4 was promoted to the post of Grade-II Assistant. However in the year 1995, Gajendra Behera was promoted to the post of Superintendent Level-II by superseding 43 persons in the senior list. 3. The petitioner contended that the provisions of Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ORV Act, 1975’) are not applicable to the employees of Orissa High Court and Hon’ble the then Chief Justice has not framed the relevant rules in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India for making the provision for reservation in the case of promotion. Consequently, the promotion of Opposite Party No.4 was in clear violation of Rule-6 of the Orissa High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1963 (herein after referred to as the ‘Rules, 1963’) since admittedly, the petitioner was senior to Opposite Party No.4. 4. The counter affidavit came to be filed by the Special Officer (Special Cell) on behalf of the Registry of the Orissa High Court (Opposite Parties 2 and 3) wherein reliance has been placed to an order dated 27.4.1988 passed by Hon’ble the then Chief Justice under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit regarding adoption of relevant provisions of the Orissa Reservation of vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 as well as the rules framed thereunder with respect to promotion of the members of the High Court staff belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes against the reservation quota. 5. 5. Accordingly, it is stated on behalf of the Registry of the Court that on the adoption of the ORV Act, 1975 and ORV Rules, 1976 and by virtue of the order of Hon’ble the then Chief Justice dated 27.04.1988, five posts in the cadre of the Superintendent Level-II were required to be filled up on account of the creation of four new posts and promotion of one Superintendent to the rank of Assistant Registrar (Establishment). These posts in the cadre of the Superintendent Level-II have been filled up by way of promotion from amongst the eligible candidates of Senior Assistant, in consonance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 1963 read with the provisions of the ORV Act, 1975 and the ORV (SC and ST) Rules, 1976. It is further stated that after adoption of reservation in promotion, 21 roster points had been earlier filled up in the cadre of Superintendent Level-II and out of the 5 vacancies in the cadre of Superintendent Level-II, fell on the roster point Nos.22 to 26 which were meant for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates respectively in view of the ORV (Amendment) Rules, 1994. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that at the time of promotion of Opposite Party No.4, while the petitioner was at Serial No.7 of the senior list, Opposite Party No.4 was at Serial No.44 and both were eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent Level-II. Since Opposite Party No.4 belongs to Scheduled Caste community, his case for promotion to the post of Superintendent Level-II was considered against Roster Point No.22 which was meant for Scheduled Caste candidate in view of the letter No.35692 dated 4.12.92 of the Tribal Welfare Department. 6. It is the undisputed fact that in pursuance of powers vested under Clause (1) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble the then Chief Justice of Orissa made the rules, known as “The Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 1963” in order to regulate the method of appointment of officers and servants of the Court. 7. The petitioner has sought to place reliance on Rule-6 of the Rules, 1963 in order to state that the promotions had to be made only on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority, which is as follows: “6. 7. The petitioner has sought to place reliance on Rule-6 of the Rules, 1963 in order to state that the promotions had to be made only on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority, which is as follows: “6. (1) Promotions to the various posts in the High Court staff shall be made by the respective appointing authorities. (2) Promotions shall be made on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. (3) Vacancies, permanent or casual, in the posts of Stamp Reporter and Oath Commissioner and in categories 1 and 2 in Class III service shall ordinarily be filled up by promotion. (4) A vacancy in the post of the Additional Assistant Registrar may be filled either by promotion of a competent member of the staff with adequate service, or, if in the opinion of the Chief Justice there is no such competent person available for filling up the vacancy, by deputation of a Munsif for a period not exceeding three years at a time. (5) A vacancy in the post of the Joint Registrar may be filled either by promotion of a competent member of the staff who is a Graduate in Law or, if in the opinion of the Chief Justice there is no such competent person available for filling up the vacancy, by deputation of an officer of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Junior Branch). The period of deputation shall ordinarily be for three years but can be extended at the discretion of the Chief Justice.” He further contended that the reliance placed by Opposite Parties 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit on the orders passed by Hon’ble the then Chief Justice on 27.4.1988, is wholly without jurisdiction since no consequent amendment to the Rules, 1963 has been carried out. For better appreciation, the orders passed by Hon’ble the then Chief Justice dated 27.4.1988 is quoted as hereunder: “In view of the office notes, let the relevant provisions of the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 as well as the rules framed thereunder with respect to promotion of the members of the High Court staff belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes against reservation quota be adopted. Office to put up further notes as early as possible as to whether there is any existing vacancy which should be filled up by promotion of any member of the High Court staff belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe against the reservation quota on account of adoption of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Sd/- …………………... Chief Justice. 27-4-88” 8. On consideration of the submissions made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner are to be rejected outright since Rule-7 of the Rules, 1963 has mandated that “no provision has been made in the said rules, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to servants holding corresponding posts in the State Government shall regulate the conditions of service of court servants subject to such modifications, variations or exceptions, if any, in the said rules and orders, as the Hon’ble Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify”. Rule-7 of the aforesaid Rules is quoted herein below: “7. (1) In respect of such matters regarding the conditions of service of court servants for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to servants holding corresponding posts in the State Government shall regulate the conditions of service of court servants subject to such modifications, variations or exceptions, if any, in the said rules and orders, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify: Provided that no order containing modifications, variations or exceptions in rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, shall be made by the Chief Justice except with the approval of the Governor: Provided further that the powers exercisable under the rules and orders of the State Government by the Governor or by any authority subordinate to the Governor shall be exercisable by the Chief Justice or by such person as he may, by general or special order, direct.” 9. In view of the clear and categorical provision as noted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the order of Hon’ble the then Chief Justice dated 27.4.1988 as extracted hereinabove read with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1963 clearly making the ORV Act, 1975 applicable to all employees of the Orissa High Court. In view of the clear and categorical provision as noted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the order of Hon’ble the then Chief Justice dated 27.4.1988 as extracted hereinabove read with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1963 clearly making the ORV Act, 1975 applicable to all employees of the Orissa High Court. There can be no dispute that the Rules, 1963 did not provide for any reservation and consequently, due to operation of Rule-7 of the Rules, 1963, the ORV Act, 1975 if so facto would apply and the order of Hon’ble the then Chief Justice dated 27.4.1988 did not direct any modifications, variations or exceptions to the applicability of the said ORV Rules, 1976 to the employees of Orissa High Court. From the counter affidavit of the Special Officer (Special Cell) on behalf of Opposite Parties 2 & 3 and in particular, the averments made in Para-7 thereof, it is clear that Opposite Party No.4-Gajendra Behera being a member of the Scheduled Caste, was eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Level-II after being admittedly considered against the Roster Point No.22 which was meant for Scheduled Caste candidates. We afraid that no lawful ground exists to challenge the promotion made to Sri Gajendra Behera (Opposite Party No.4) under Annexure-2 to the writ application. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any cost.