of senior scale and selection grade after 5 and 10 years of service which were allowed for persons in the clerical cadre had not been extended to the Stenographers, although they were put in the same integrated seniority list. In the joint seniority list issued on 21.05.1988, the petitioners claimed that they figured at serial Nos.51, 48, 49, 85, 80 and 86 respectively, while the respondents 4 to 38 figured somewhere at serial Nos.52 to 96. The Rules framed by the High Court under Section 35(3) of the Punjab Courts Act envisaged a joint cadre for members of 'ministerial establishment' including Clerks, Ahalmad, Copyist, Steno typists etc. The petitioners would reproduce instructions given by the High Court in its administrative wing on 19.05.1990 to all the District and Sessions Judges to the effect that, 'mere upgradation or creation of a post with different nomenclature would not mean (that ) a separate cadre is to be carved out and that therefore Stenographers/Stenotypists ought not to be treated as separate cadre and they form part of the joint cadre in terms of Rule II(a) of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume-I, Chapter 18-A.' By Order No.111, dated 20.09.1990, the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, had designated as many as 73 Junior Assistants and granted to them selection grade of Rs.15002640. Of them, respondents 4 to 8 had been actually juniors to the petitioners 1 to 3, who had been placed in the grade of Rs.12002100. This anomaly was cast away by the High Court in its Full Court meeting when it decided, “ it is essential in the interest and
