JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J.: The writ petitioners stand borne on the establishment of the High Court. They stand aggrieved by Annexure P-4, which embodies The Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the Members of the Staff (Recruitment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 2003, wherein qua Schedule-D apposite to the category of the petitioners, as appended thereto, an amendment which stands extracted hereinafter, stands effectuated qua the source wherefrom promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court is to be made. Sr. No Name of post No Mode of appointment Qualification Experience Scale of pay 1. Senior Assistants/ Record Keeper/ Reader to Registrar General/ Court Officer/ Auditor 32 (i) 90% by promotion from amongst clerks, which term includes Junior Assistants/Proof Readers. (ii) 10% by selection on the basis of limited competitive examination from amongst clerks, which term includes Junior Assistants of the Subordinate Courts. Graduation. Six years Rs. 5800- 200- 7000- 220- 8100- 275- 9200 SA Rs. 240/- 2. A pivoted onslaught stands directed by the petitioners qua an untenable source standing constituted therein comprising of clerks/junior assistants of the subordinate Courts in favour whereof a concomitant unwarranted 10% quota stands ear marked for rendering them on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination eligible for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court. The ear marking of the aforesaid per centum for the afore referred category for on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination hence empowering them to obtain promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court stands contended in the writ petition to baulk besides untenably oust the chances of promotion of the petitioners who stand borne on the establishment of the High Court. The principal grounds on which the ear marking of a 10% quota qua clerks/junior assistants working on the establishment of the subordinate courts for on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination standing entitled to stake a claim for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court, is canvassed to be legally unwarranted, are of its (a) purveying an opportunity to the Clerks/Junior Assistants of the subordinate Courts even when they stand inducted in service latter than the petitioners to gain an accelerated promotion rendering them to stand placed higher in seniority vis.a.vis the petitioners herein who viz.a.viz them stand appointed them earlier in time, (b) of their being no intelligible differentia in the fixation of a 10% quota in favour of junior assistants/clerks borne on the establishment of the subordinate courts to on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination standing entitled to stake a claim for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court especially when it spoils their chances of promotion besides its not standing anvilled upon any intelligible differentia reared by its also not bearing any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 3. This Court has considered the respective pleadings of the contesting parties as exist on record. A thorough hearing has been given to the rival contentions addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. 3. This Court has considered the respective pleadings of the contesting parties as exist on record. A thorough hearing has been given to the rival contentions addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The arguments as espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner for setting aside the fixation of a quota of 10% qua clerks/junior assistants working on the establishment of the subordinate courts for entitling them to on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination stake a claim for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court, is rudderless, as the fixation of the quota aforesaid qua the category aforesaid of employees borne on the establishment of the subordinate courts for eligiblizing them to on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination stake a claim for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court, is, neither discriminatory nor ridden with any vice of arbitrariness inasmuch as even though it reduces the chances of promotion of the petitioners for theirs being considered for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court. Nonetheless a mere reduction in the chances of promotion of the petitioners to the promotional posts as occur on the establishment of the High Court is per se not construable to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. Contrarily when the apposite rule fixes a 10% quota, for filling up the promotional posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court, qua clerks/junior assistants borne on the establishment of the subordinate Courts, to capacitate them on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination especially when the participants alone are clerks/junior assistants borne on the establishment of the subordinate Courts stake a claim for promotion to the posts aforesaid borne on the establishment of the High Court, predominantly is facilitative of promoting excellence in administration besides its approbating merit. Even otherwise, the underlying principle governing the ear marking of a 10% quota qua the aforesaid promotional posts borne on the establishment of the High Court in favour of Clerks/Junior Assistants borne on the establishment of the subordinate courts, is of their selection arising on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination wherein the participants alone are clerks/junior assistant of the subordinate Courts, obviously hence is promotive of merit besides excellence as also reveres calibre. Moreso when their right to aspiration of promotion to posts borne on the establishment of the High Court is not absolutely snatched rather stands preserved upto 90%. As a corollary, with the aforesaid underlying tenet ingraining the prescription of a quota of 10% in the apposite rule in favour of clerks/junior assistants of the subordinate Courts for on theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination is facilitative of theirs hence standing entitled to stake claim for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/ Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor borne on the establishment of the High Court, it cannot at all be construable to abrogate or denude the chances of promotion of the petitioners herein borne on the establishment of the High Court especially even when they stand excluded to participate in the apposite limited competitive examination drawn in the apposite rules as a specific precisely delineated source of recruitment moreso when in their favour a 90% quota stands ear marked in the apposite rules for facilitating theirs being considered for promotion to the promotional posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor, existing on the establishment of the High Court. Moreover, with the underlying tenet governing the aforesaid prescription of 10% quota in favour of the apposite category being its promoting excellence in service besides revering talent and calibre, it cannot be construed to be either arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable nor the apposite category can be construed to be not distinctive viz.a.viz the petitioners nor obviously theirs standing constituted as a special category for availing the apposite quota for the purpose embodied in it, is not bereft of its creation standing not founded upon an intelligible differentia with a salient object of promoting excellence in administration. 5. 5. Be that as it may, the prescription in the apposite rule of a 10% quota standing reserved in favour of clerks and Junior Assistants for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant/Record Keeper/Reader to Registrar General/Court Officer/Auditor existing on the establishment of the High Court, in the event of theirs standing declared successful in a limited competitive examination, is a tenable source of recruitment hence predominantly it is intra vires the constitution nor it abridges besides does not infract the tenets of un-arbitrariness or non discriminatoriness vis.a.vis the petitioners borne on the establishment of the High Court viz.a.viz the employees borne on the establishment of the subordinate judiciary especially when the classification or categorization of clerks and junior assistants of subordinate courts bears a distinct entity viz.a.viz. the petitioners whereofwhom through a limited competitive examination wherein they in case succeed they would stand eligible to claim promotion to the promotional posts existing on the establishment of the High Court subject to availability of posts in the promotional cadre upto the per centum of the quota prescribed in their favour, necessarily when hence it affords in favour of the beneficiaries thereof an accelerated promotion naturally occurs. In aftermath when the impugned rule gives an accelerated promotion to a category of employees distinct viz.a.viz the petitioners, their distinct entitisation vis.a.vis the petitioner is per se a reasonable classification founded obviously upon an intelligible differentia inter se them and the staff borne on the establishment of the High Court besides its carrying a direct nexus with the objective sought to be achieved thereunder inasmuch as of its promoting excellence in service besides revering merit. Moreover, with a 90% quota standing already reserved in favour of the petitioners borne on the establishment of the High Court for entitling them for theirs being considered for promotion to the apposite promotional posts borne on the establishment of the High Court, hence they cannot impugn the fixation of a minimal quota of 10% in favour of the employees borne on the establishment of the subordinate Courts especially when the object of accelerating excellence through a compatible accelerated promotion underlying the prescription of an apposite quota reserved in their favour rests upon theirs succeeding in a limited competitive examination. As a corollary, when their calibre besides talent stands tested in a limited competitive examination whereas the petitioners herein borne in the establishment of the High Court qua whom a 90% quota for promotion to the promotional post already stands prescribed in the apposite rules are not mandated to suffer either the exaction or the rigour of a limited competitive examination viz.a.vis the junior assistants/clerks of the subordinate courts who to avail the benefit of 10% quota reserved in their favour in the apposite rules in the promotional cadre are to undergo the exacting rigours of a limited competitive examination necessarily when they succeed therein, hence, display their talent and calibre whereupon they stand entitled to the benefit of promotion to the promotional posts borne on the establishment of the High Court, in sequel, the mere fact that hence they stand reckoned higher in seniority vis.a.vis the petitioners who stand appointed earlier to them, cannot, when the respondents are more meritorious, constitute a tenable factor for setting aside the impugned rule. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs.