ORDER : At 10.30 a.m. List at 2.00 p.m. At 2.00 p.m. Taken on board. 2. Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Madras High Court in the impugned judgments itself, has taken note of the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India 2009 (8) SCC 273 wherein it has been quoted that judicial review is not permissible on the ground of suitability of the candidate whose name has been recommended, therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition. Secondly, it has submitted that one of the Hon'ble Judge has entered into the Court and made certain suggestions to the Bench hearing the case and there had been commotion in the Court, therefore, there is no conducive atmosphere where the matter should be permitted to be continued with the said High Court. 3. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondents returnable in two weeks as to why this case should not be transferred to this Court and heard by a Bench of minimum three judges. In addition to the normal mode of service, dasti service, is permitted. 4. Meanwhile, the High Court is restrained to proceed further with the matter in W.P.No.375/2014 and the interim order passed by the High Court to maintain status quo regarding the process of the recommendations stands vacated for the reason that it was merely a recommendation and the said recommendation has to be filtered at various levels and it will take a long time. 5. List after two weeks.