1. Upon motion the matter is taken on board

2. The prayers in this writ petition are somewhat extraordinary. The petitioner, who is a serving District Judge in the State of Himachal Pradesh, has brought this writ petition seeking these, amongst other reliefs

" (a) issue in appropriate... direction, directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for being elevated as a Judge of the High Court on the basis of the merit and seniority and also as per the recommendation made in this regard;

" (b) pass an appropriate writ or direction, calling upon the respondents to assign reasons for the supersession of the petitioner so that it can be tested fairly and reasonably;"

"The interim prayer in the writ petition is to

"restraining the respondent-authorities from elevating Respondent 4 as a High Court Judge pending final disposal of the writ petition before this Honble Court;"

3. The petitioner who argued the matter in person after rescinding the authority of his lawyer submitted that he is the seniormost serving District Judge and entitled to be considered for appointment as a Judge

4. The appointment to the superior courts is a constitutional process. It cannot be dealt with at the level of inter se seniority even so far as appointment from the judicial service is concerned so long as the senior officers merit and suitability are taken into account before he is not recommended for elevation

5. The petitioner has permitted himself to make these following disclosures in his petition

"That the petitioner has reasons to believe that when the recommendations came before the Ministry of Law, Government of India, they raised a query as to why Mr. Mahajan, who was the seniormost, was being superseded and sent for his record. At that time the present Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Bhiwani Singh who has replaced Ms Justice Leila Seth, at present, sent the records to the Law Ministry and also made recommendation for his appointment in place of Mr. Vaidya against service quota and perhaps observed that there was no ground for his supersession, more particularly, when his name was recommended already twice by a regular appointed Chief Justice and also by two different Government - one headed by BJP and the other by Congress. In substance, the petitioners name has been recommended by three Chief Justice including the present Acting Chief Justice. Presumably the recommendations must have been sent by the Law Ministry thereafter to the Chief Justice of India in which the petitioners name was also recommended for elevation at No. 1. However, the petitioner has reason to believe that recommendation of theing Chief Justice have perhaps not been accepted and the recommendations of Ms Justice Leila Seth has been accepted. The names which have been approved have been recommended by the Chief Justice who has already retired. Furthermore, the BJP Government endorsing such names also has since been dismissed and at present there is Governors RuleThat furthermore the petitioner also fails to understand while his name was recommended in 1991 by Justice Balkrishnan and endorsed by BJP Government how could same Government turn down his name on the ground of non-suitability of the petitioner."

6. Petitioners main grievance is that his case was not considered at all. His own averments excerpted above, perhaps, indicate the contrary. From the petitioners own averments it seems that his case was considered but was not accepted

7. Generally speaking, no writ would go to constitutional functionaries to form an opinion about the eligibility and suitability of a person for appointment as a Judge of the superior court. Judicial review is, indeed, in a narrow area such as where non- conformity with mandatory constitutional conditions either as to the eligibility or as to procedure are clearly shown to have been violated. Here, the petitioner wants a pre-emptive quia timet action which is not permissible. The prayers in this writ petition are not permissible. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.