JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. Petitioners and respondents 3 to 16 are 2003 Batch Judicial Officers. They, responded under their respective categories, to the Advertisement Notice No. PSC/Ex-2001/64 dated 04.12.2001, issued by J.& K. State Public Service Commission, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for posts of Munsiffs in the grade of Rs. 8000-12950. They and other aspirants for advertised posts participated in the selection process and on the strength of merit secured, found placed in the select list issued by the J.& K. Public Service Commission. The merit position of petitioners, private respondents as also of other candidates as per the Merit List/select list issued by the Commission (Annexure (A) to the writ petition, was as under: S. No. Roll No. Name of Candidate Category G Total (Marks) 1 - Amerjeet Singh Langeha RBA 646 2 049 Sandeep Kour RBA 608 3 082 Amit Kumar Gupta OM 604 4 014 Sandeep Gandotra OM 603 5 064 Anoop Kumar OM 597 6 154 Farooq Ahmad Bhat OM 595 7 138 Shabeer Ahmad OM 587 7A - Arvind Sharma OM - 8 202 Yash Paul OM 573 9 020 Imtiyaz Ahmed Lone OM 571 10 117 Amit Sharma OM 570 11 011 Khursheed Ul-Islam OM 569 12 034 Arti Mohan OM 563 13 147 Lmi Kul Soom Mir OM 561 14 107 Pawan Kumar Sharma OM 559 15 141 Iqbal Ahmad Massodi OM 558 16 072 Renu Dogra SLC 554 17 079 Sudesh Sharma OM 552 18 018 Spalzes Angmo ST 550 19 042 Adnan Sayeed RBA 541 20 100 Khem Raj OM 541 21 201 Dinesh Gupta OM 540 22 074 Parvaiz Iqbal OM 539 23 165 Mir Afroz OM 537 24 063 Prem Sagar OM 536 25 016 Archana Charak OM 535 26 160 Ab. Quayom Mir OM 533 27 030 Manzoor Ahmad Zargar OM 532 28 007 Yahya Firdoos Ahanger RBA 531 29 098 Manoj Parihar RBA 504 30 143 Muzaffer Iqbal Khan LAC 503 31 013 Bashir Ahmed Munshi RBA 494 32 025 Raja Mohammed Tasleem ST 485 33 015 Manjeet Rai SLC 480 34 058 Anjum Ara RBA 475 35 002 Manzoor Ahmed Khan LAC 460 36 181 Rajni Sharma RBA 447 37 041 Madan Lal SC 436 38 144 Ahsan Ullah Parvez Malik RBA 429 39 146 Javed Ahmad Naik RBA 408 40 121 Arun Kumar Kotwal RBA 379 41 038 Vinod Kumar SC 379 42 051 Sushil Singh SC 369 43 039 Romesh Lal SC 367 44 150 Mansoor Ahmed Lone RBA 340 45 168 Mohd. Naseem RBA 333 2. J.& K. Public Service Commission vide PSC/Ex-2002/KCS (Judicial) dated 09.05.2003 forwarded the list of selected candidates to respondents 1 and 2. The respondent No. 2 on receipt of the select list recommended appointment of selected candidates as Munsiffs in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-12950 in the Subordinate Judiciary. The selected candidates on their appointment ordered vide Government Order No. 1815-LD (A) of 2003 dated 06.08.2003 became members of J.& K. Civil Services (Judicial). 3. The High Court of J.& K. through its Registrar General - respondent No. 2 herein, issued Gradation List on 01.06.2010 wherein the private respondents though below petitioners in the order of merit notified earlier (Annexure A), were shown at a higher place and therefore, senior to the petitioners. Private respondents were allowed a jump in seniority position by 2 to 30 steps in the Gradation List. Resultantly, seniority of selected candidates below S. No. 3 was adversely affected by their placement in Gradation List after their colleagues with lower merit. 4. To understand the fall out of Gradation List on the seniority of petitioners, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Gradation List and tabulate the steps gained by the private respondents because of their placement in the List and the effect of such gain on the seniority of the petitioners: Gradation List (As on 01.06.2010) In the Grade of Rs. To understand the fall out of Gradation List on the seniority of petitioners, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Gradation List and tabulate the steps gained by the private respondents because of their placement in the List and the effect of such gain on the seniority of the petitioners: Gradation List (As on 01.06.2010) In the Grade of Rs. 10750-300-13150-350-14900 (ACP Scale) S. No. Name of the Officer D.O.B Date of Entry in Service Date of Entry in Present Grade Date of Retirement Category 1 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - 5 - - - - - 6 - - - - - - 7 - - - - - -- 8 - - - - - - 9 - - - - - - 10 - - - - - - 11 Amaijit Singh Lingha 12.12.1971 - - - 12 Sandeep Kour 25.12.1969 - - - 13 Amit Kumar Gupta 11.7.1973 - - - 14 Yahya Firdous Ahanger 19.11.1969 - - - RBA 15 Sandeep Gandotra 14.6.1971 - - - - 16 Raja Mohd. Tasleem 04.05.1967 - - - ST 17 Anoop Kumar 20.03.1973 - - - 18 Farooq Ahmad Bhat 01.08.1970 - - - - 19 Madan Lal 15.01.1971 - - - SC 20 Manoj Parihar 05.10.1972 - - - RBA 21 Shabir Ahmad 6.5.1968 - - - - 22 Arvind Sharma 5.11.1974 - - - - 23 Yash Pal Sharma 30.5.1973 - - - - 24 Imtiaz Ahmad Lone 13.3.1967 - - - - 25 Bashir Ahmad Munshi 5.4.1968 - - - - 26 Amit Sharma 10.10.1971 - - - - 27 Manjit Rai 18.01.1972 - - - SLC 28 Khurshid-ul-Islam 1.11.1967 - - - - 29 Anjum Ara 03.03.1970 - - - RBA 30 Arti Mohan 28.7.1973 - - - - 31 Rajni Sharma 26.7.1969 - - - - 32 Vinod Kumar 16.9.1969 - - - SC 33 Umi Kulsoom 15.2.1970 - - - - 34 Pawan Kumar Sharma 28.4.1968 - - - - 35 Ahsan-ullah Parvez Malik 18.10.1967 - - - RBA 36 Iqbal Ahmad Masoodi 18.1.1966 - - - - 37 Renu Dogra 27.5.1972 - - - - 38 Muzaffar Iqbal Khan 14.4.1972 - - - ALC 39 Sudesh Sharma 10.5.1972 - - - - 40 Javed Ahmad Naik 01.01.1970 - - - RBA 41 Spalzes Angmo 01.04.1968 - - - - 42 Adnan Sayed 25.12.1970 - - - - 43 Sushil Singh 16.4.1967 - - - SC 44 Arun Kumar Kotwal 2.3.1966 - - - RBA 45 Khem Raj 18.8.1972 - - - - 46 Dinesh Gupta 19.4.1975 - - - - 47 Parvaiz Iqbal 3.5.1975 - - - - 48 Mir Afroz 10.9.1972 - - - - 49 Mansoor Ahmad Lone 03.05.1966 - - - RBA 50 Prem Sagar 19.6.1968 - - - - 51 Archana Charak 18.1.1974 - - - - 52 Ab. Qayoom Mir 14.11.1970 - - - - 53 Ramesh Lal 15.5.1971 - - - SC 54 Manzoor Ahmad Zargar 25.11.1968 - - - RBA 55 Manzoor Ahmad Khan 27.3.1966 - - - - B Change in seniority position S. No. Petitioner's Name Place in the Merit List of Batch 2003 Place given in Gradation List Down graded by steps 1. Qayoom Mir 14.11.1970 - - - - 53 Ramesh Lal 15.5.1971 - - - SC 54 Manzoor Ahmad Zargar 25.11.1968 - - - RBA 55 Manzoor Ahmad Khan 27.3.1966 - - - - B Change in seniority position S. No. Petitioner's Name Place in the Merit List of Batch 2003 Place given in Gradation List Down graded by steps 1. Arvind Sharma 7A 12 4 2 Yash Pal 8 13 4 3 Imtiyaz Ahmed Lone 9 14 5 4 Amit Sharma 10 16 6 5 Khursheed-ul-Islam 11 18 7 6 Aarti Mohan 12 20 8 7 Umi KUI-soom Mir 13 23 10 8 Iqbal Ahmed Massodi 15 26 11 9 Renu Dogra 16 27 11 10 Sudesh Sharma 17 29 12 11 Adnan Sayeed 19 32 13 12 Khem Raj 20 35 15 13 Dinesh Gupta 21 36 15 14 Parvaiz Iqbal 22 37 15 15 Prem Sagar 24 40 16 16 Archana Charak 25 41 16 17 Manzoor Ahmed Lone 35 45 10 xxx xxx xxxx S. No. Private Respondent's Name Place in the Merit List of Batch 2003 Place given in Gradation List Upgraded by Steps 1 Yahaya Firdose Ahanger 28 4 24 2 Raja Mohammed Tasleem 32 6 26 3 Madan Lal 37 7 30 4 Manoj Parihar 29 8 21 5 Bashir Ahmed Munshi 31 15 16 6 Manjit Rai 33 17 16 7 Anjum Ara 34 19 15 8 Rajni Sharma 36 21 15 9 Vinod Kumar 41 22 9 10 Ahsan Ullah Parvez Malik 38 25 13 11 Muzaffer Iqbal Khan 30 28 2 12 Javed Ahmed Naik 39 30 9 13 Sushil Singh 42 33 9 14 Arun Kumar Kotwal 40 34 6 15 Mansoor Ahmed Lone 44 39 5 5. The respondent No. 2 did not only notify the Gradation List but acted upon the List by promoting respondents 3 and 4 as Sub-Judges in the Grade of Rs. 14200-350-15950-400-18350 on the basis of their placement in the Gradation List. This has been followed by promotion orders issued from time to time, promoting other 27 Batch 2003 officers; a good number of them ahead of their colleagues higher in merit. Last such order is High Court order No. 252 dated 04.07.2015 whereby officer from S. Nos. 35 to 41 in the Gradation List has been promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division). Last such order is High Court order No. 252 dated 04.07.2015 whereby officer from S. Nos. 35 to 41 in the Gradation List has been promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division). The respondents 3 and 4 therefore have been allowed to steal a march over there 23 and 25 colleagues respectively because they though lower in merit, were placed at higher place in the "Gradation List". Same is true other Reserve Category officers in the Gradation List promoted till date. 6. Petitioners aggrieved with the Gradation List and the promotions of respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of their placement in the List, have come up with the writ petition in hand. They decided to invoke jurisdiction of this Court only after their successive representations did not evoke any response from respondents 1 and 2. 7. Petitioners case is that the course followed by respondent No. 2 offends Rule 31 of J.& K. Reservation Rules, 2005 (Reservation Rules, 2005 for short) as also Rule 24 of J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. It is pleaded that impugned Gradation List, in effect, changed their seniority position and was issued at their back without affording them an opportunity to put forth their stand and therefore, is violative of principles of natural justice. It is next pleaded that promotion granted to respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of Reserved Category, is not otherwise permissible under Reservation Rules providing for reservation in promotions, inasmuch as, post of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Sub Judge) carries pay scale higher to that of Deputy Secretary. Petitioners point out that while Deputy Secretary is placed in the pay scale of Rs. 10325-15200 (Pre-revised) the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) carries pay scale of Rs. 14200-350-15950-400-18350 (Pre-revised). It is averred that Roster in present case has been prepared as per Rule 5 J.& K. Reservation Rules, 2005 least realising that Roster prepared in terms of Rule 5 is to be used to determine the vacancy position in different categories for direct recruitment and not to give effect to the reservation in promotion provided in Rule 9, Reservation Rules 2005. 8. 8. Petitioners on the strength of averments made in the writ petition seek following re-lief:- "(i) Writ of Certiorari quashing gradation list of Munsiffs/Judicial Magistrates issued by the respondent No. 2 in dehors of principle of natural justice as well as orders of promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Sub Judge based on their placement in the aforementioned gradation list. (ii) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents more particularly the respondent No. 2 to frame, finalise and settle the seniority of Munsiff/Judicial Magistrates of Batch 2002-03 in accordance with the Rule 31 of the J.& K. Reservation Rules read with Rule 24 (b) of J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and by following the principles of natural justice. (iii) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow due placement of the petitioners in the seniority/gradation list in accordance with merit obtained by the petitioners and other candidates in the competitive examination of Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) and consequently promote the petitioners as well as other members of service strictly in accordance with the placement as per merit determined by the J.& K. Public Service Commission. (iv) Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents more particularly the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the respondents 3 and 4 or any other private respondent to the next higher post of Sub Judge on the basis of their wrong placement in the so-called gradation list." 9. Writ petition is opposed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that as the petitioners and respondents 3 to 16 were selected before J.& K. Reservation Act, 2004 and J.& K. Reservation Rules, 2005 came into force, they are governed by J.& K. Reservation Rules, 1994 (hereinafter Reservation Rules, 1994). Reliance on Rule 31 of Reservation Rules, 2005, according to respondent No. 2 is misplaced. It is contended that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on account of failure on part of the petitioners to array J.& K. Public Service Commission as party respondent. The stand taken is that Rule 24 of J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 are to be read with Rule 14 Reservation Rules, 1994 and not in isolation and when so read, the case set up by the petitioners is bound to fall apart. 10. The stand taken is that Rule 24 of J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 are to be read with Rule 14 Reservation Rules, 1994 and not in isolation and when so read, the case set up by the petitioners is bound to fall apart. 10. Respondent No. 3, an immediate beneficiary of the impugned Gradation List who though placed at S. No. 23 has earned promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) ahead of his 22 senior colleagues in his reply reiterates the stand taken by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 claims to have been placed at S. No. 1 in RBA Category in the select list and therefore rightly placed by respondent No. 2 at S. No. 4 in the Gradation List. Respondent No. 3 insists that Gradation List is prepared strictly in accordance with the Rules in vogue at the relevant time and writ petition is nothing but an effort to stall the respondent No. 4's promotion and that of other beneficiaries of Reservation Act 2004 and Reservation Rules, 2005. 11. Petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit filed on 26.11.2014, reiterate their stand that seniority of members of J.& K. Civil Services (Judicial) is to be fixed in accordance with Rule 24 of J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956. They question the stand taken by respondent No. 2 in its reply to the writ petition, on the ground that the stand taken runs contrary to reply filed in Chain Lal v. State of J.& K. SWP No. 2430 of 2000. The relevant part of the reply filed in the aforesaid case is extracted in the rejoinder as under: - "Mere possession of qualification and appointment on Ad hoc basis against available vacancy does not entitle the petitioners to claim seniority. The seniority of the Munsiff is required to be fixed in accordance with the Rule 24 of J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Since the petitioners are the direct recruits, their seniority is required to be fixed in accordance with the merit determined by the PSC, any other mode including the claim of the petitioners will be violative of the aforesaid rules which determined and regulate the seniority of members of service." 12. Since the petitioners are the direct recruits, their seniority is required to be fixed in accordance with the merit determined by the PSC, any other mode including the claim of the petitioners will be violative of the aforesaid rules which determined and regulate the seniority of members of service." 12. Petitioners without disputing that Reservation Rules, 1994 (SRO 126 of 1994) would be attracted in the present controversy, insist-that the impugned gradation list is not justifiable even under Rule 14, inasmuch as, Rule 14 envisages preparation of 100 Point Roster for direct recruitment. It is pointed out that' reservation in promotions is governed by Rules 17 to 21 of Reservation Rules, 1994 and not Rule 14 as claimed by respondents 2 and 3. It is pleaded that Rule 17 Reservation Rules, 1994 restricts reservation in promotion to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories and no such provision for socially and educationally backward classes i.e. Social Caste, ALC, RBA, Ex-Servicemen is comes across in the Reservation Rules, 1994, while the provision for reservation in promotions for such categories is made for the first time in Reservation Rules, 2005. It is pointed out that as respondent No. 2 has promoted respondent No. 3 under RBA Category, it cannot plead that the Rules of Reservation, 2005 were not followed in the present case. Petitioners insist that notwithstanding the plea raised by respondent No. 2 that Reservation Rules, 1994 and not of 2005, were to be followed while determining the seniority of petitioners and private respondents, Rule 31 of Reservation Rules, 2005 is to be read in continuation of Reservation Rules, 1994. 13. We have gone through the pleadings as well as record available on the file. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. Controversy raised in the present petition relates to reservation in promotions. Petitioners case is that their colleagues selected in the same selection process and appointed as Munsiffs Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the grade of Rs. 8000-12950, though lower in the merit have been placed, in the impugned Gradation List, ahead of them in the name of reservation, to pave way for their promotions as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the grade of Rs. 12850-17550 (Pre-revised), notwithstanding petitioners higher position in the Merit List published by J.& K. Public Service Commission. 8000-12950, though lower in the merit have been placed, in the impugned Gradation List, ahead of them in the name of reservation, to pave way for their promotions as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the grade of Rs. 12850-17550 (Pre-revised), notwithstanding petitioners higher position in the Merit List published by J.& K. Public Service Commission. It is stated that the impugned Gradation List has been even acted upon, in respect of some of their colleagues to the prejudice of petitioners sides. Petitioners question the Gradation List and the order promoting private respondents as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the grounds summarised above. 15. A Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar and others v. State of J.& K. and others in SWP No. 1290/2014 (AIR 2016 J and K 1) a/w connected matters, relying upon law laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Suppl (III) SCC 217 : ( AIR 1993 SC 477 , para 107) has struck down Section 6 Reservation Act, 2004 and Rules 9 and 10 J.& K. Reservation Rules, 2005, being ultra vires Article 16 Constitution of India. The Division Bench has taken the view that reservation in promotions is in conflict with spirit and mandate of Article 16 Constitution of India and therefore, impermissible. Resultantly, the promotions are to be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, in accordance with Rule - J.& K. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The Bench, extracted following observation of Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney's case (supra) : 827. We find it difficult to agree with the view in Rangachari (AIR 1962 SC 36) that Article 16(4) contemplates or permits reservation in promotions as well, it is true that the expression "appointment" takes in appointment by transfer. It may also be that Article 16 (4) contemplates not merely quantitative but also qualitative support to backward class of citizens. But this question has not be answered on a reading of Article 16(4) alone but on combined reading of Article 16 (4) and Article 335. In Rangachan this fact was acknowledged but explained away on a basis which with great respect to the learned Judges who constituted the majority-does not appear to be acceptable. The propositions emerging from the majority opinion in Rangachan have been set out in para 823. In Rangachan this fact was acknowledged but explained away on a basis which with great respect to the learned Judges who constituted the majority-does not appear to be acceptable. The propositions emerging from the majority opinion in Rangachan have been set out in para 823. Under propositions (d) (as set out in para 823), the majority does say that "[i]n providing for the reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4), the State has to take into consideration the claims of the members of the backward classes, consistently with the maintenance of the efficiency of administration. It must not be forgotten that the efficiency of administration is of such paramount importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration. That undoubtedly is the effect of Article 335. Reservation of appointments or posts may theoretically and conceivably mean some impairments of efficiency," (SCR p. 606) but then it explains it away by saying "but the risk involved in sacrificing efficiency of administration must always be borne in mind when any State sets about making a provisions for reservation of appointments or posts." (SCR p. 606) 828. We see no justification to multiply 'the risk, which would be the consequence of holding that reservation can be provided even in the matter of promotion. While it is certainly just to say that a handicap should be given to the backward class of citizens at the stage of initial appointment, it would be a serious and unacceptable inroad into the rule of equality of opportunity to say that such a handicap should be provided at every stage of promotion throughout their career. That would mean creation of a permanent separate category apart from the mainstream-vertical division of the administrative apparatus. The members of reserved categories need not have to compete with others but only among themselves. There would be no will to work, compete and excel among them. Whether they work or not, they tend to think, their promotion is assured. This in turn is bound to general a feeling of despondence of 'heart-burning' among open competition members. All this is bound to affect the efficiency of administration. Putting the members of backward classes on a fast-tracking would necessarily result in leapfrogging and the deleterious effects of 'leapfrogging need no illustration at our hands. This in turn is bound to general a feeling of despondence of 'heart-burning' among open competition members. All this is bound to affect the efficiency of administration. Putting the members of backward classes on a fast-tracking would necessarily result in leapfrogging and the deleterious effects of 'leapfrogging need no illustration at our hands. At the initial stage of recruitment reservation can be made in favour of backward class of citizens but once they enter the service, efficiency of administration demands that these members too compete with others and earn promotion like all others; no further distinction can be made thereafter with reference to their "birthmark", as one of the learned Judges of this Court has said in another connection. They are expected to operate on equal footing with others. Crutches cannot be provided throughout one's career. That would not be in the interest of efficiency of administration nor in the larger interest of the nation. It is wrong to think that by holding so, we are confining the backward class of citizens to the lowest cadres, it is well known that direct recruitment take place at several higher levels of administration and not merely at the level of Class IV and Class III. Direct recruitment is provided even at the level of All India Services. Direct recruitment is provided at the level of District Judge, to give an example nearer home. It may also be noted that during the debates in the Constituent Assembly one referred to reservation in promotions, it does not appear to have been within their contemplation. 829. It is true that Rangachari has been the law for more than 30 years and that attempts to reopen the issue were repelled in Karamchari Sangh ( AIR 1981 SC 298 ). 829. It is true that Rangachari has been the law for more than 30 years and that attempts to reopen the issue were repelled in Karamchari Sangh ( AIR 1981 SC 298 ). It may equally be true that on the basis of that decision, reservation may have been provided in the matter of promotion in some of the Central and State services but we are not convinced that the majority opinion of Rangachari to the extent it holds, that Article 16 (4) permits reservation even in the matter of promotion, is not sustainable in principle and ought to be departed from..." Reference was also made to sub-para 7, para 859 and sub-para 8, para 860 of the judgment wherein it was held that Article 16 (4) does not permit provision for reservations in the matter of promotion and reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16 (4) is confined to initial appointment only and cannot extend to providing reservation in the matter of promotion. The Bench held that protection to Reservation Scheme providing for reservation in promotion, available under Clause (4A) Article 16 of the Constitution, would not be available to such a scheme in the Jammu and Kashmir State, as Clause (4A) is not applicable to the State. 16. The issue raised in the present petition squarely falls within the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma's (AIR 2016 J and K 1) case. Though, petitioners do not assail the Gradation List and the consequent promotion order on the ground that these are not constitutionally permissible and therefore ultra vires Constitution yet the law laid down in Indra Sawhney's ( AIR 1993 SC 477 ) case and relied upon in Ashok Sharma's case cannot go unnoticed, while dealing with present case as it touches constitutionality of the Reservation Rules whereupon the impugned Gradation List is based and therefore, validity of the High Court orders promoting private respondents on the basis of their placement in Gradation List. The Gradation List in question and promotion orders made on the basis thereof, in favour of private respondents, in implementation of reservation policy, are therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The conclusion so drawn, ordinarily, would clinches the matter. However, it would be, if not necessary, but appropriate to deal with the issues, other that constitutionality of Reservation in promotion scheme, raised in the petition. The conclusion so drawn, ordinarily, would clinches the matter. However, it would be, if not necessary, but appropriate to deal with the issues, other that constitutionality of Reservation in promotion scheme, raised in the petition. 17. There is no scope for any disagreement, that on the date petitioners and respondents 3 to 16 were appointed as Munsiffs in the grade of Rs. 8000-12950, Reservation Rules, 1994 occupied the field. Petitioners, therefore, are not to draw any support from Reservation Rules, 2005 notified vide SRO 295 of 2005. Having said so, let us proceed to examine whether the Gradation List notified by respondent No. 2 on 01.10.2006 wherein respondents are shown at a higher place, notwithstanding their lower merit, satisfies the requirements of Reservation Rules, 1994. 18. Rule 10, Reservation Rules, 1994 provides for reservation for appointment by direct recruitment. It reads :- Part II Reservation for Appointment by Direct Recruitment 10. Except as otherwise provided in these rules, available vacancies shall be reserved for the direct recruitment in each service, class, category and grade in favour of permanent residents of the State belonging to any of the below mentioned categories which shall, as nearly as possible, constitute the percentage of available vacancies shown against each:- (a) Scheduled Castes 8% (b) Scheduled Tribes 10% (c) Socially and educationally backward classes (other than scheduled castes and scheduled tribes). (i) Weak and under privileged classes. (Social castes) 2% (ii) Residents of areas adjoining Line of Actual Control 20% 19. In terms of Rule 14, Reservation Rules 1994, a "Roster" of 100 vacancies is to be maintained to give effect to the reservation in direct recruitment, provided under Rule 10. For ready reference Rule 14 also deserves to be noticed:- "14. Roster :- (1) With a view to giving effect to the reservation hereinbefore provided in this part, the selection/appointing authority shall, in respect of each service, class, category and grade in the services and posts under the State, maintain a roster of 100 vacancies in the form given below :- (a) Roster points for direct recruitment 1. Open competition 2. Backward areas 3. Scheduled Caste 4. Open competition 5. Open competition 6. Scheduled Tribe 7. Backward areas 8. Open competition 9. Open competition 10. Line of actual control 11. Open competition 12. Backward areas 13. Open competition 14. One competition 15. Scheduled Caste 16. Scheduled Tribe 17. Backward area 18. Open competition 19. Open competition 2. Backward areas 3. Scheduled Caste 4. Open competition 5. Open competition 6. Scheduled Tribe 7. Backward areas 8. Open competition 9. Open competition 10. Line of actual control 11. Open competition 12. Backward areas 13. Open competition 14. One competition 15. Scheduled Caste 16. Scheduled Tribe 17. Backward area 18. Open competition 19. Open competition 20. Open competition 21. Open competition 22. Backward area 23. Open competition 24. Open competition 25. Open competition 26. Scheduled tribe 27. Scheduled Caste 28. Backward area 29. Open competition 30. Open competition 31. Open competition 32. Open competition 33. Backward area 34. Open competition 35. Open competition 36. Scheduled tribe 37. Open competition 38. Backward area 39. Scheduled caste 40. Open competition 41. Open competition 42. Open competition 43. Backward area 44. Open competition 45. Line of Actual Control 46. Scheduled tribe 47. Open competition 48. Backward area 49. Social Castes 50. Open competition 51. Scheduled caste 52. Open competition 53. Backward area 54. Open competition 55. Open competition 56. Scheduled tribe 57. Open competition 58. Backward area 59. Open competition 60. Open competition 61. Open competition 62. Open competition 63. Scheduled caste 64. Backward area 65. Open competition 66. Scheduled tribe 67. Open competition 68. Open competition 69. Backward area 70. Open competition 71. Open competition 72. Open competition 73. Open competition 74. Backward area 75. Scheduled Caste 76. Schedule tribe 77. Open competition 78. Open competition 79. Backward area 80. Line of Actual Control 81. Open competition 82. Open competition 83. Open competition 84. Backward area 85. Open competition 86. Scheduled tribe 87. Open competition 88. Open competition 89. Scheduled caste 90. Backward area 91. Open competition 92. Open competition 93. Open competition 94. Open competition 95. Backward area 96. Scheduled tribe 97. Open competition 98. Scheduled caste 99. Open competition 100. Backward area" 20. Rule 10, Reservation Rules 1994, it may be stated at the cost of repetition, provides for reservation in direct recruitment in each service, class, category or grade. It does not provide for reservation in promotion. Rule 17 titled "Reservation in Government Service (by promotion)" deals with reservation in promotion. Rule 18 of Reservation Rules 1994 requires a Roster of 100 vacancies to be maintained to give effect to the reservation provided under Rule 17. It would be advantageous to extract Rules 17 and 18 of Reservation Rules, 1994. "17. Rule 17 titled "Reservation in Government Service (by promotion)" deals with reservation in promotion. Rule 18 of Reservation Rules 1994 requires a Roster of 100 vacancies to be maintained to give effect to the reservation provided under Rule 17. It would be advantageous to extract Rules 17 and 18 of Reservation Rules, 1994. "17. (I)Except as otherwise provided in these rules, vacancies in any service, class, category or grade carrying a pay scale the maximum of which is Rs. 3800/- or below, to be filled by promotion, shall be reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes according to the percentage specified below:- (i) Where direct recruitment quota specified under the rules or order regulating such service, class, category or grade is at 25% or less, the reservation in promotion quota shall be- (a) for Scheduled Caste 8% (b) for Scheduled Tribe 5% (ii) Where direct recruitment quota specified under the rules or orders regulating such service, class, category or grade is more than 25%, the reservation shall be- (a) for Scheduled Caste 4% (b) for Scheduled Tribe 5% 18. Roster.-(1) With a view to giving effect to the reservation provided in rule 17 above, the selection authority shall in respect of each service, class, category, or grade in which vacancies for appointment by promotion are to be filled, maintain a roster of: (a) 100 vacancies in the form indicated below in respect of reservation fixed in Clause (i) or Rule 17 above. 1. Un-reserved 2. Un-reserved 3. Scheduled Caste 4. Un-reserved 5. Scheduled Tribe 6. Un-reserved 7. Un-reserved 8. Un-reserved 9. Un-reserved 10. Un-reserved 11. Un-reserved 12. Un-reserved 13. Un-reserved 14. Un-reserved 15. Scheduled Caste 16. Un-reserved 17. Un-reserved 18. Un-reserved 19. Un-reserved 20. Un-reserved 21. Un-reserved 22. Un-reserved 23. Un-reserved 24. Un-reserved 25. Scheduled Tribe 26. Un-reserved 27. Un-reserved 28. Un-reserved 29. Un-reserved 30. Un-reserved 31. Un-reserved 32. Un-reserved 33. Un-reserved 34. Un-reserved 35. Un-reserved 36. Un-reserved 37. Un-reserved 38. Un-reserved 39. Scheduled Caste 40. Un-reserved 41. Un-reserved 42. Un-reserved 43. Un-reserved 44. Un-reserved 45. Scheduled Tribe 46. Un-reserved 47. Un-reserved 48. Un-reserved 49. Un-reserved 50. Un-reserved 51. Scheduled Caste 52. Un-reserved 53. Un-reserved 54. Un-reserved 55. Un-reserved 56. Un-reserved 57. Un-reserved 58. Un-reserved 59. Un-reserved 60. Un-reserved 61. Un-reserved 62. Un-reserved 63. Scheduled Caste 64. Un-reserved 65. Open competition 66. Schedule tribe 67. Un-reserved 68. Un-reserved 69. Un-reserved 70. Un-reserved 71. Un-reserved 72. Scheduled Tribe 46. Un-reserved 47. Un-reserved 48. Un-reserved 49. Un-reserved 50. Un-reserved 51. Scheduled Caste 52. Un-reserved 53. Un-reserved 54. Un-reserved 55. Un-reserved 56. Un-reserved 57. Un-reserved 58. Un-reserved 59. Un-reserved 60. Un-reserved 61. Un-reserved 62. Un-reserved 63. Scheduled Caste 64. Un-reserved 65. Open competition 66. Schedule tribe 67. Un-reserved 68. Un-reserved 69. Un-reserved 70. Un-reserved 71. Un-reserved 72. Un-reserved 73. Un-reserved 74. Un-reserved 75. Scheduled Caste 76. Un-reserved 77. Un-reserved 78. Un-reserved 79. Un-reserved 80. Un-reserved 81. Un-reserved 82. Un-reserved 83. Un-reserved 84. Un-reserved 85. Scheduled Caste 86. Un-reserved 87. Un-reserved 88. Un-reserved 89. Un-reserved 90. Un-reserved 91. Un-reserved 92. Un-reserved 93. Un-reserved 94. Un reserved 95. Un reserved 96. Un-reserved 97. Un-reserved 98. Un-reserved 99. Un-reserved 100. Un-reserved 21. A bare look at the Gradation List impugned in the petition, would reveal that it has not been prepared in accordance with Rule 18. It is pertinent to point out that first appointee in the order of merit of 2003 Batch officers, was to figure at S. No. 81 in the Gradation List and the List to proceed accordingly. In other words, the second appointee was to figure at S. No. 82 in the Gradation List and other appointees to find place in the Gradation List in said sequence. In terms of Rule 18, 5th place i.e. S. No. 85 was to go to the Scheduled Tribe, 9th place i.e. S. No. 89 to Scheduled Caste, 90th to 100th place to unreserved, 3rd place to Scheduled Caste, 5th place to Scheduled Tribe, 15lh place to Scheduled Caste and so and so forth. In the Gradation List in question, third place has gone to unreserved category, 4th place i.e. S. No. 84 to Reserved Backward Area, 6th place i.e. S. No. 86 to ST Category, 9th place i.e. S. No. 89 to Scheduled Caste Category, 10th place i.e. S. No. 90 to Reserved Backward Area Category. The Gradation List, therefore, does not correspond to the Roster required to be maintained in terms of Rule 18 (a), Reservation Rules of 1994. It does not even correspond to the Roster required to be maintained in terms of Rule 14 of the Reservation Rules, though it is to be emphasised that Rule 14 would not be applicable in case of promotions and Roster in terms of Rule 14 is to effect reservation provided under Rule 10 i.e. at the time of recruitment. 22. It does not even correspond to the Roster required to be maintained in terms of Rule 14 of the Reservation Rules, though it is to be emphasised that Rule 14 would not be applicable in case of promotions and Roster in terms of Rule 14 is to effect reservation provided under Rule 10 i.e. at the time of recruitment. 22. Let us assume for a while (though such assumptions is not available because of clear stand taken by respondent No. 2 that the Gradation List has been prepared having regard to Reservation Rules of 1994), that Gradation List has been prepared in accordance with Rule 10, J.& K. Reservation Rules, 2005. The list does not even tally with the Roster for promotion prescribed under Rule 10, Reservation Rules 2005. In terms of Rule 10, S. No. 84 is go to Un-reserved Category, S. No. 86 to Backward Area, S.No. 90 to ALC, S.No. 92 to Scheduled Tribe, S.No. 96 to Backward Area and S.Nos. 97 to 100 to Un-reserved Categories. In the impugned Gradation List, S. No. 84 has gone to Reserved Backward Area Category, S. No. 86 to Scheduled Tribe, S.No. 89 to Scheduled Caste, S. No. 90 to Reserved Backward Area Category, S. No. 95 to Reserved Backward Category, S. No. 96 to Scheduled Tribe, S. No 98 to Social Caste and S. No. 100 to Reserved Backward Area Category. 23. The Roster prepared in terms of Rule 14 Reservation Rules of 1994, to effect reservation provided under Rule 10 at the time of recruitment, identifies slots for all the reserved categories mentioned in Rule 10. However, Roster prepared under Rule 18 to effect reservation in promotions provided under Rule 17, identifies slots for Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste categories only. The impugned Gradation List on the other hand identifies slots for all the Categories i.e. SC, ST, RBA, OSC, ALC Category. It may be pointed out that while Rule 10 Reservation Rules of 1994 provides for reservation at the stage of recruitment of all the reserved categories, Rule 17 providing for reservation in promotions, restricts such reservation only to SC and ST categories. It does not leave any room for reservation in promotions for Reserved Backward Area, ALC, Social Caste and Other Social Caste Category. It does not leave any room for reservation in promotions for Reserved Backward Area, ALC, Social Caste and Other Social Caste Category. The Gradation List, in the circumstances, is neither in tune with the Reservation Rules 1994, nor does it satisfy the requirements of Reservation Rules 2005. It depicts non application of mind and arbitrariness on part of the concerned authority, while fixing inter se seniority of 2003 batch Judicial Officers. 24. Reservation in promotions under Reservation Rules 1994 as well as Reservation Rules 2005, is restricted upto particular pay scale. The benefit of reservation is not available above the prescribed pay scale. In terms of Rule 17, Reservation Rules 1994 the benefit is available to the pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs. 3800. Rule 9 Reservation Rules, 2005 makes the benefit available to the pay scale of Deputy Secretary to Government. The posts above the prescribed pay scale are to be filled up strictly on the basis of merit cum seniority as provided under J.& K. Civil Services (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1956. The record available on the file would reveal that pre-revised pay scale of Deputy Secretary to Government is Rs. 10,000-15,200, while the revised pay scale is Rs. 15600-31900. The pre-revised pay scale of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the other hand is Rs. 12850-17550, the post carries revised pay scale of Rs. 39530-54010. Reference in this regard may be made to J.& K. Administrative Service Rules, 2008 notified vide SRO 386 of 1st December, 2008, J.&.K. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 notified vide SRO 93 dated 15th April, 2009 and J. and K. Subordinate Judicial Pay Rules, 2011 i.e. SRO 244 of 2011 dated 5th August, 2011. In the said background, even if reservation in promotion is taken to be permissible, (an assumption not available at all in view of above discussion) the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) falls beyond purview of Rule 17 Reservation Rules, 1994 as well as Rule 9 Reservation Rules, 2005 and benefit of reservation cannot be given effect while making promotion to the post. 25. For the reasons discussed above, we find merit in challenge to Gradation List dated 01.06.2010 issued by respondent No. 2 as also order promoting respondents 3 and 4 as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of their placement in the Gradation List. 25. For the reasons discussed above, we find merit in challenge to Gradation List dated 01.06.2010 issued by respondent No. 2 as also order promoting respondents 3 and 4 as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of their placement in the Gradation List. Challenge to such other orders passed on the basis of the impugned Gradation List, allowing the private respondents, belonging to different Reserved Categories, to steal march over the petitioners, is also to succeed. We are told that petitioners 1 to 10 stand already promoted as Civil Judges (Senior Division) and so are respondents 3 to 12 and 14 and 15. The interest of petitioners 1 to 10 is, therefore, restricted to their placement at appropriate place in the seniority list of Civil Judges (Senior Division) maintained by respondent No. 2. 26. Petitioners 11 to 16 and M/s. Mir Afroz (on deputation) Abdul Qayoom Mir and Manzoor Ahmad Zargar figuring at S.Nos. 19 to 27 in order of merit in the Merit List rank senior to respondents 4,5, 7 to 12 at S.Nos. 32, 37, 31, 33, 34,41, 38, 30 in the Merit List, and already promoted as Civil Judges (Senior Division) vide different High Court Orders including High Court order No. 252 dated 04.07.2015. Petitioners 11 to 16 and M/s. Mir Afroz (on deputation) Abdul Qayoom Mir and Manzoor Ahmad Zargar, therefore, had a right to be considered for promotions as Civil Judges (Senior Division) ahead of respondents 4,5, 7 to 12. The respondent No. 2 by ignoring petitioners claim and failure to accord consideration to their claim has infringed their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. However, M/s. Mir Afroz (on deputation) Abdul Qayoom Mir and Manzoor Ahmad Zargar, have not joined as petitioners in present petition. Petitioners have not questioned the orders whereby private respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 were promoted including High Court order No. 252 dated 04.07.2015, respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 presumably have been working as Civil Subordinate Judges, Senior Division for quite sometime. Petitioners have not questioned the orders whereby private respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 were promoted including High Court order No. 252 dated 04.07.2015, respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 presumably have been working as Civil Subordinate Judges, Senior Division for quite sometime. We do not have definite information about the posts of Civil Judges (Senior Division) lying vacant as on date so as to examine whether petitioners 11 to 16 and M/s. Mir Afroz (on deputation) Abdul Qayoom Mir and Manzoor Ahmad Zargar, directed to be considered for promotion as Civil Judges (Senior Division) against such post without disturbing respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 and thereafter placed in the seniority list of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to be prepared by respondent No. 2 strictly in accordance with merit. We, therefore, refrain from setting aside the orders whereby respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 have been promoted as Civil Judges (Senior Division). We direct respondent No. 2 to undertake an exercise to find out whether any posts of Civil Judge (Senior Division) are lying vacant as on date so that consideration is accorded to petitioners' promotion against available posts. Let such exercise be completed within three months from today. In the event, no such posts is/are found lying vacant or less than the posts required to consider petitioners 11 to 16 are lying vacant, the orders whereby respondents 4, 5, 7 to 12 have been promoted as Civil Judges (Senior Division), to the extent necessary to accord consideration to petitioners 11 to 16, shall stand set aside on expiry of three months from today and consideration accorded to the petitioners' promotion against the available vacancies. On completion of the exercise either way respondent No. 2 shall reframe and notify the seniority list in accordance with merit. 27. Disposed of.