ORDER : Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J Manju Thanthera and twenty other Judicial Assistants (J.A.) in the High Court of Rajasthan have made the following prayers in this Writ Petition:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs; and A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents may be directed not to further make any promotion/joining on the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiners from the qualifying list issued vide Order dated 11.12.2018 (treated as panel list) (Annex.03). B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents may be directed to determine the vacant list of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner and conduct the departmental exam for the vacant posts (as on 2021-2022) while permitting the petitioners to appear in the said Exams. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners on the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner if found eligible in the departmental exam with all consequential benefits. D. Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner. E. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. These Junior Judicial Assistants have assailed the merit list issued vide order dated 11th December 2018 as illegal solely on the ground that the said panel prepared pursuant to the departmental examination conducted in November 2018 shall lapse after one year. Moving further with such a plea, they are seeking a direction for holding a departmental examination for the vacant post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner as on 2021-22, after determining the vacancy for such post. 3. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we have formed an opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. 4. The petitioners have pleaded that they were selected and appointed as Junior Judicial Assistant in the High Court of Rajasthan vide appointment orders dated 24th September 2016 and 17th October 2016 and they were promoted in due course and are presently working at Judicial Assistant (J.A.). The post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner is filled up through promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority. The post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner is filled up through promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority. Such an exercise was undertaking in November 2018 and, in connection therewith, a departmental examination was conducted to fill up 16 posts of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. The petitioners have pleaded that 291 eligible candidates had participated in the departmental examination and a list of candidates was prepared who had qualified the departmental examination. Pursuant thereto, an order was issued on 21st December 2018 for appointment of 16 persons who were promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. 5. According to the petitioners, three other Judicial Assistants or Officials in the equivalent or above Grade but below the Grade of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner were promoted in March 2019 and January 2020. They have further pleaded that 15 more such Judicial Assistants from the same merit list were promoted in August 2021 to the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. They have endeavored to draw a parallel with the departmental examination for Judicial Assistants and Translators to put forth a ground that no panel list (reserved list) should have been prepared pursuant to the departmental examination held in November 2018. They have also referred to the departmental examination held in the year 2008-09 for the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. These petitioners seem to have tried to ventilate their grievance before the competent authority on 17th June 2020 and filed a detailed representation on 4th June 2020. However, no response came from the concerned authority and, therefore, they have approached this Court. 6. In the reply filed on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court, it is stated that the selected candidates who had cleared the departmental examination are not required to undergo the said exercise once again. In the reply, some technical objections have also been raised, such as, not filing separate court fees, no authorization in favor of the petitioner who signed the petition. More importantly, it is pleaded that vide notifications dated 17th February 2007, 22nd December 2011 and 20th November 2017, departmental examinations were held for the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner and panel/final list was prepared and only after such panels exhausted fresh examination was conducted. 7. The following stand has been taken by the High Court in the counter-affidavit filed on 07th January 2023:- “5. 7. The following stand has been taken by the High Court in the counter-affidavit filed on 07th January 2023:- “5. That the contents of para no. 5 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and hence denied by the answering respondents. It is submitted that at the time of promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fees Examiner in December 2018, a reserve list was prepared as had been done on all previous occasions. However, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the preparation of the same is illegal since the candidates in the reserve list are those who are senior to the petitioners and have qualified the written examination. 6. That the contents of para no. 6 of the writ petition require no reply from the answering respondents. 7. That the contents of para no. 7 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and hence denied. It is submitted that as a matter of practice, on previous occasions also, vide notifications dated 17.02.2007, 22.12.2011 and 20.11.2017, the answering respondents for the purposes of recruitment for the post of Stamp reporter cum Court Fee Examiner has prepared reserve panel/list. Furthermore, even besides the order dated 11.12.2018, on all previous occasions, fresh examinations were initiated only after the previous panel has been completely exhausted. It is further submitted that the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner is promotional post not a direct recruitment post, in which the candidates have to obtain 40% marks in qualifying test for the eligibility and those candidates who have passed the test will be able to stake their claim for promotion and do not need to pass the test again. Therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to the answering respondents' actions of effecting promotions to the post of Stamp reporter cum Court Fee Examiner from the reserve list/panel. Copies of the notifications dated 17.02.2007, 22.12.2011 and 20.11.2017 are submitted herewith and marked collectively as Annexure-R/1/1. It is pertinent to mention that examination for promotion on the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner is only qualifying test and even if petitioners clear fresh examination and qualify otherwise, then also they will be promoted after the persons who are senior to them and who have already qualified the test. 8. That the contents of para no. 8. That the contents of para no. 8 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and hence denied. It is submitted that selection/recruitment on the post of Junior Accountant is based on merit-cum-Seniority following by Personal Interview and further recruitment on the post of Translator is being made on 75% posts by direct recruitment and on 25% posts from amongst Judicial Assistants or Junior Judicial Assistants having experience of 3 years by holding a test in English and Hindi translation and a candidate shall have to secure minimum 60% marks in each paper and 75% marks in aggregate. On the other hand, recruitment to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court fee Examiner is being made by promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority adjudging suitability of the candidates on the Criteria of Seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Judicial Assistants or employees in the equivalent or above grade but below the grade of Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner, who have secured 40% of marks in the qualifying test in the subjects mentioned in the Rules. Since there is a different criterion for promotion for Junior Accountant & Translator (Merit-cum- seniority) as opposed to Stamp Reporter and Court fee Examiner (Seniority-cum-merit), these two kinds of promotions cannot be equated. 9. That the contents of para no. 9 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and hence denied. It is submitted that in pursuance of notification dated 17.02.2007, qualifying exam for the post of Stamp Reporter cum Court Fee Examiner was held in the year 2008-09 and number of posts were not mentioned in the notification. It is further submitted that only 06 candidates were declared qualified in the said exam vide order dated 21.03.2009 and out of them four were given appointment vide order dated 02.07.2009, one person was given appointment vide order dated 11.01.2010 and remaining one person was given appointment vide order dated 09.02.2016 respectively. Copies of the orders dated 21.03.2009, 02.07.2009, 11.01.2010 and 09.02.2016 shall be kept ready for the Hon'ble Court's perusal at the time of arguments. 10. That the contents of para no. 10 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and hence denied. It is submitted that the office order no. Copies of the orders dated 21.03.2009, 02.07.2009, 11.01.2010 and 09.02.2016 shall be kept ready for the Hon'ble Court's perusal at the time of arguments. 10. That the contents of para no. 10 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner stated and hence denied. It is submitted that the office order no. 48 dated dated 11.12.2018 is not a reserve list for the purpose of promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court fee Examiner. As a matter of fact it contains name of the candidates who have qualified the departmental test held on 18.11.2018. The names given therein are in the order of seniority. Looking to the criteria for promotion i.e. seniority cum merit, until the list is completely exhausted, fresh departmental examinations cannot be conducted.” 8. The petitioners joined the issue by filing a rejoinder affidavit wherein they stated that it is a basic rule in service law that the vacant posts shall be determined every year as on the first day of April. They now also contend that the procedure for granting promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner is illegal and arbitrary as an aspirant has to face the qualifying test and to secure 40% marks. But in the same breath, they also reiterate that the departmental examination should have been conducted every year so as to provide opportunity to the aspirants like the petitioners for promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. 9. Mr. Nikhil Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that keeping the select list alive for indefinite period shall be patently illegal and in contravention to the Constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments in (a) “State of Bihar and Anr, vs. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 765”; (b) “Praveen Kumar Babbar and Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi (2007) 08 DEL CK 0048”; (c) “J.N. Verma and Anr. vs. Hon’ble Chief Justice Delhi High Court and Anr. (1992) 05 DEL CK 0041” and (d) “Ashok Kumar Khanna vs. Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Anr. (2008) 02 DEL CK 0310”. 10. AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 765”; (b) “Praveen Kumar Babbar and Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi (2007) 08 DEL CK 0048”; (c) “J.N. Verma and Anr. vs. Hon’ble Chief Justice Delhi High Court and Anr. (1992) 05 DEL CK 0041” and (d) “Ashok Kumar Khanna vs. Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Anr. (2008) 02 DEL CK 0310”. 10. Under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, the “Appointing Authority” shall be the Chief Justice or a Judges or a Committee of Judges or any other officer who may be specially empowered by the Chief Justice to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Appointing Authority. The “Member of the service” shall be a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the service under the provisions of the Rules of 2002 or under the Rules or orders superseded by the Rules and includes a person who is placed on probation. Rules 5 which deals with the method of recruitment provides that the recruitment to a post or category of posts shall be (a) by direct recruitment, or (b) by promotion, (c) by transfer from Subordinate Courts to offices of the Government. Ist proviso to Rule 5 provides that the Chief Justice may if deemed appropriate for the purpose of short listing of the candidates provide for screening test. Sub-Rule (2) provides that the Chief Justice may from time to time (a) specify the method by which recruitment under a post or category of posts shall be made, (b) determine the proportion of vacancies to be filled in by each method in case of recruitment by more than one method and (c) specify the manner in which such recruitment shall be made. 11. 11. Under Part I of the order dated 05th December 2002 which was issued in exercise of the powers under Rules 4, 5, 7 and 22 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, the Chief Justice has been pleased to specify the method of recruitment and qualifications for appointment to the various posts under Schedule-I. The method of recruitment to the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner has been laid down under Clause (4) which provides as under:- “Recruitment to the post of Stamp Reporter and Court-fee Examiner shall be made by promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority adjudging suitability of the candidates on the Criteria of seniority- cum-merit from amongst the Judicial Assistants or officials in the equivalent or above grade but below the grade of Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiner, who have secured total 40% of marks in the qualifying test." 12. The procedures followed for the recruitment of the Assistant Stamp Reporter and Court-Fee Examiners and the Translators are distinctly different from the method of recruitment under Clause (4). This difference shall be evident on a mere glance at the provisions under Clause (4-A) and Clause (5) which are extracted hereinbelow:- (4-A) ASSISTANT STAMP REPORTER AND COURT FEE EXAMINERS- Recruitment to the post of Assistant Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiners shall be made by promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority adjudging suitability of the candidates on the Criteria of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Judicial Assistants or officials in the equivalent or above grade, but below the grade of Assistant Stamp Reporter and Court Fee Examiners, who have secured 40% of marks in the qualifying test in the following subjects: 1. Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 Chapters 4 (Affidavits), 5 (Jurisdiction of Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench), 9 (appeals and applications), 10 (appeal or applications by or against legal representatives), 11 (presentation of appeals and applications), 18 (proceedings other then original trials), 21 (Habeas Corpus), 22 (directions, orders or writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution) and 23 (appeals to the Supreme Court of India). 2. Limitation Act, and 3. Raj. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. 2. Limitation Act, and 3. Raj. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. (5) TRANSLATORS:- Recruitment shall be made on 75% posts by direct recruitment and on 25% posts from amongst the Judicial Assistants or Junior Judicial Assistants having experience of 3 years by holding a test in English and Hindi translation. Candidates shall be given passages in English from the judgments and records and shall be asked to translate them into Hindi. Similarly, passages in Hindi from the records or from some other books etc. shall be given and the candidates shall be asked to translate them into English. Minimum qualification shall be Post Graduate in English Literature from any recognized university established by law in India. Preference shall be given to a Law Graduate. A candidate shall have to secure 55% marks in each paper and 60% marks in aggregate. 13. May be, the petitioners are seeking support from sub-rule (6) which provides that the Appointing Authority shall determine the actual number of vacancies on 1st April every year and sub-rule (2) which provides that Appointing Authority shall also determine the vacancies of earlier years, year-wise, which were required to be filled in by promotion if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in, but then, Appointing Authority shall undertake an exercise under Rule 6 primarily for direct recruitment. The Appointing Authority may undertake this exercise also in case of appointment by promotion where the criteria is merit-cum-seniority. But this is necessary to keep in mind that the selection processes for the appointment of Junior Accountants and Translators are quite different and no parallel can be drawn with the selection of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. We may also indicate that this is quite clear from the statement made in para No.9 of the writ petition which refers to the selection made in year 2008-09 that only six candidates were eligible at that point in time as against the same number of vacancy for the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner. 14. The judgment in “Madan Mohan Singh” dealt with direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judges for which 32 posts were advertised and appointments were made. But, later on, the High Court had issued a direction for appointment from the merit list prepared for 32 posts. 14. The judgment in “Madan Mohan Singh” dealt with direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judges for which 32 posts were advertised and appointments were made. But, later on, the High Court had issued a direction for appointment from the merit list prepared for 32 posts. The other judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are also quite distinguishable on facts. In “Madan Mohan Singh” the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations which will clarify the position: “….but even otherwise in the view we are taking namely that the particular advertisement and the consequent selection process were meant only to fill up 32 vacancies and not to fill up the other vacancies, the merit list prepared on the basis of the written test as well as the viva-voce will hold good only for the purpose of filling up those 32 vacancies and no further because the said process of selection for those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an end. If the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies also that would naturally amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and selection process.” 15. This is fundamental in service jurisprudence that there shall be marked difference in the selection procedures under “merit-cum-seniority” and “seniority-cum-merit”. In the first place, only a definite number of employees as per their seniority are invited to participate in the written examination conducted for assessing their respective merit. This is also well known that all eligible candidates are not invited to participate in such a selection process and their number is restricted as per the number of vacancies available. Whereas, in the selection based on seniority-cum-merit all eligible employees as on a particular date are assessed through a departmental examination in which a benchmark is fixed, and all those Government employees who cross the benchmark criteria shall be held eligible for promotion and they shall be promoted according to their seniority. Furthermore, there is a distinction between the merit list prepared for direct recruitment on a particular number of posts and the merit list for promotion. The panel prepared in a selection process which is based on merit alone survives for a limited period or its validity may be restricted or even no panel shall be prepared. Furthermore, there is a distinction between the merit list prepared for direct recruitment on a particular number of posts and the merit list for promotion. The panel prepared in a selection process which is based on merit alone survives for a limited period or its validity may be restricted or even no panel shall be prepared. The reason is that those waiting in the wings get their opportunity to qualify for the Government employment. Quite contrary to this procedure, the select list prepared after holding the departmental examination for selecting the employees for the promotion on the basis of “seniority-cum-merit” shall not lapse but remain alive till exhausted. 16. The Rules provide that promotion to the post of Stamp Report-cum-Court Fee Examiner shall be given as per seniority-cum-merit. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners should have also been directed to undergo the merit test so as to make them eligible for promotion to the post of Stamp Report-cum-Court Fee Examiner. However, in view of Clause (4) of Part-I of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, even if the petitioners qualify the departmental examination they can be promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter-cum-Court Fee Examiner only when their turn comes as per their seniority; of course, subject to suitability. While so, the claim of the petitioner shall arrive only after the previously prepared merit list gets exhausted and at this stage no purpose shall be served by directing the respondents to conduct suitability test. Moreover, any such direction shall amount to interfering with the discretion and powers of the Chief Justice and such interference is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit on this writ petition and, therefore, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8759 of 2022 is dismissed.