JUDGMENT : (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) 1. Petitioners in this Writ petition are serving as District Judges in the State of Jharkhand and are direct recruits in a recruitment process which commenced in 2017 and who were appointed on 5.8.2019 and 6.8.2019. 2. The issue in the writ petition relates to fixation of roster inter-se between direct recruits and promotees of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services governed by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. 3. Initially in 2004, through a notification dt. 20.08.2004, it was laid down that (i) 50% of posts of District Judges amongst Sub-Judges were to be filled by promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test, (ii) 25% were to be filled by promotion by way of selection strictly on the basis of merit through a limited competitive examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years service and (iii) 25% were to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of a test and viva voce conducted by the High Court. 4. This was modified through a notification dt. 14.12.2011 in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. Under the 2011 Amendment, (i) 65% posts of District Judges had to be filled by promotion from amongst the Sub-Judges, (ii) 10% were to be filled by promotion by way of selection on the basis of merit through a limited competitive examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years of service and (iii) 25% were to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of the written test and viva voce conducted by the High Court. 5. Rule 8(d) of the said Rules provided for maintenance of the roster after appointment/promotion to fix the seniority of direct recruits vis-à-vis promotee officers. It directed that a 100 point roster be prepared and earmarked certain roster points for each of the 3 categories mentioned in the Rules. 6. The petitioners fall in the category of the 25% directly recruited from the Bar. Their recruitment process had commenced in 2017 and was completed on 5.8.2019 and 6.8.2019 when they were appointed as District Judges. 7. 6. The petitioners fall in the category of the 25% directly recruited from the Bar. Their recruitment process had commenced in 2017 and was completed on 5.8.2019 and 6.8.2019 when they were appointed as District Judges. 7. In the writ petition at para 10, the petitioners, however, make out a grievance about alleged wrong fixation of officers recruited in 2012 and 2013 from direct quota and officers promoted in the year 2012 to 2015 in a roster notified by the High Court on 27.6.2016. 8. They contend that in the said roster, after 100 points, 12 officers promoted in 2015 had been erroneously placed en-bloc; that the roster point fixation till 100 roster points does not call for any interference but the en-bloc placement of 12 officers beyond the 100 roster points is contrary to the Rules and needs to be re-fixed (revised) as per Rule 8(d) of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. 9. In K.Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others, (2020)5 SCC 689 , the Supreme Court held: “38. …none can be identified as being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service-related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate….” 10. The above principle was again reiterated in Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2020) 19 SCC 604 . 11. We fail to understand how the petitioners can find fault with a roster prepared on 27.6.2016 when the very recruitment process under which they were directly recruited commenced in 2017 and concluded in August, 2019; and the petitioners were not born in the cadre of District Judges on 27.06.2016 and were born only on 5.8.2019 and 6.8.2019. 12. In our opinion, they have no locus to question the roster preparation made of the District Judges cadre on 27.06.2016. 13. 12. In our opinion, they have no locus to question the roster preparation made of the District Judges cadre on 27.06.2016. 13. Also the instant writ petition has been filed in June 2024 challenging the roster fixation of 2016 made on 27.06.2016, and after a gap of 8 years such a belated challenge cannot be permitted. 14. Petitioners further contend in para 16 of the Writ Petition that on 23.2.2022, without finalizing the seniority and roster points, 11 officers ( 2016 promotees) were promoted to the post of Principal District and Sessions Judge by the High Court and that their further promotion is illegal. 15. When the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the promotions which happened in 2016 for the aforesaid reasons to the cadre of District Judges from the cadre of Sub-Judges, they cannot also be permitted to challenge the designation of the 2016 promotees as Principal District Judges. 16. This is because the designation of the Additional District Judges as Principal District and Sessions Judges is not actually a promotion but is in fact a re-designation of the same persons in view of their attaining higher seniority over their juniors. 17. Therefore, relief (i) sought by the petitioners for quashing of the notification dt. 22.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) is rejected. 18. The other reliefs sought by the petitioners in the relief portion of the writ petition are: “(ii) For issuance of Writ in nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), for quashing the Notification/Letter No. 634/Apptt dt. 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Respondent No.1; (iii) For issuance of Writ in nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), for quashing the Letter No. 4178 dt. 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-15) issued by the Respondent No. 1; (iv) For issuance of Writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), commanding upon the Respondent to rectify/redraw the roster point fixation in accordance with Rule 8(d) of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2001 as amended.” 19. Admittedly, vide Annexure P-15. on 10.11.2023 the High Court through the Registrar General had issued a provisional roster arrangement of officers of Superior Judicial Service and invited objections from affected officers. 20. It is not in dispute that the petitioners vide Annexure P-16 dt.1.12.2023 did file their objections thereto. 21. Admittedly, vide Annexure P-15. on 10.11.2023 the High Court through the Registrar General had issued a provisional roster arrangement of officers of Superior Judicial Service and invited objections from affected officers. 20. It is not in dispute that the petitioners vide Annexure P-16 dt.1.12.2023 did file their objections thereto. 21. According to Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court (respondent no.1) , the matter is pending before the Standing Committee of the High Court which is yet to take a decision on the matters. 22. Prayer (ii) is with regard to Annexure P-10 dt. 25.02.2022 which is a roster arrangement of officers of Superior Judicial Service made at that time. When the same is sought to be reconsidered by the High Court on the administrative side vide Annexure P-15 dt. 10.11.2023 and to remove the defects, if any, in the provisional roster annexed to Annexure P-10, no useful purpose would be served to quash Annexure P-10 dt. 25.02.2022. Therefore prayer (ii) is rejected. 23. In prayer (iii), the petitioners seek quashing of the letter dt. 10.11.2023 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court notifying the provisional roster arrangement and inviting objections thereto. If this relief were to be granted by this Court, then the provisional roster, would become the final roster, which might cause even more prejudice to the affected parties who would like to raise objections thereto. We fail to understand why, when the High Court intends to give opportunity to officers including petitioners to object to the provisional roster arrangement, the petitioners want quashing of Annexure P-15 dt. 10.11.2023 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court inviting such objections to the provisional roster arrangement so that defects, if any, therein could be rectified. Therefore prayer (iii) is rejected. 24. In prayer (iv) a direction is sought by the petitioners to the High Court to rectify/redraw the roster point fixation in accordance with Rule 8(d) of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. When the High Court is proposing to consider on the administrative side objections to the provisional roster arrangement invited vide Annexure P15 dt.10.11.2023, obviously with an intention to remove defects, if any, therein, it would be superfluous to seek such a direction on the judicial side of the High Court when the High Court is seized of it. When the High Court is proposing to consider on the administrative side objections to the provisional roster arrangement invited vide Annexure P15 dt.10.11.2023, obviously with an intention to remove defects, if any, therein, it would be superfluous to seek such a direction on the judicial side of the High Court when the High Court is seized of it. If in this petition, the same is adjudicated on judicial side, then there cannot be any consideration on the administrative side. It is better that there is a decision taken on administrative side first so that, if necessary, there can be consideration of the said decision on the judicial side later. Moreover, relief (iv) is contrary to relief (iii). Therefore in our opinion, even this relief cannot be granted to petitioners. 25. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik and Others. vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 454 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made an observation that there is no legal bar or prohibition against an administrative body in seeking to review its earlier decision, provided the parties likely to be affected by such a decision are afforded an opportunity of hearing. That was a case where the inter se seniority dispute between the appellants therein and the contesting respondents, who were the members of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service, was settled by the Patna High Court on the administrative side on 04.09.1996 and the appellants were declared to be senior to the contesting respondents. In that case, the said fixation of seniority was pending before the High Court on the judicial side as a writ petition had been filed challenging the same. The Jharkhand High Court again reconsidered the issue on 29.08.2002 on the administrative side and the contesting respondents were declared to be senior to the appellants. The Supreme Court upheld the same on the ground that the High Court on the administrative side can always review its earlier decision after giving opportunity to affected parties and did not, therefore, interfere with the subsequent decision taken on 29.08.2002 by the Jharkhand High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the same on the ground that the High Court on the administrative side can always review its earlier decision after giving opportunity to affected parties and did not, therefore, interfere with the subsequent decision taken on 29.08.2002 by the Jharkhand High Court. This decision has no application to the instant case, since there was no challenge to the roster fixation made on 27.06.2016 for the last 8 years; and the petitioners, not having been born in the cadre at that time ( in view of their admitted appointments on 05.08.2019 and 06.08.2019, i.e., three years later), cannot reopen the same in 2024 and have no locus to do so. 26. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition. 27. It is, accordingly, dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners have any grievance regarding the roster arrangement notified after consideration of the objections filed to the provisional roster invited vide Annexure P-15 dated 10.11.2023, it would be open to them to approach this Court raising grounds other than what have been held against them in this case. No costs. 28. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stand disposed of.