Madhava Reddy, J.:— These two writ oetitions are for the isssue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order against the Central Bank of India and its divisional manager to consider the applications of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of clerks and other subordinate staff in the Central Bank of India on the basis of the written test held on 19 October 1975, and as per circular, dated 6 May 1968.

2. The petitioners are the children of the employees in the Central Bank of India winch is a banking company acquired under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. In exercise of the power vested in the said bank, among others, circular, dated 6 May 1968, was issued to govtrn recruitment to the posts of ckrks and other subordinate staff. By virtue of S. 19(3) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the said circular continues to be in force and govern the recruitment to the posts. In accordance with that circular applications were called for on the prescribed form from all those who fulfil the prescribed age and educational qualifications. In the case of the children of the employees of the bank, these qualifications were relaxed and certain percentage of posts are also reserved. The rules regarding recruitment of staff in so far as they are relevant for our purpose read as follows:

“7. Mode of selection:

(A) Clerical staff:

(i) Minimum Age: Age of the candidate to clerical cadre will not be less than eighteen years and more than twenty-fire years. Maximum age will be relaxable by live years in the case of sons/daughters of employees. The age restriction may be suitably relaxed in the case of those who have had previous binking experience or possess special qualifications

(ii) Educational qualifications: For recruitment to clerical cadre in accounts, typing, cash, godowns section, etc., minimum qualifications will be degree from a recognized university. However, the bank may also permit candidates not exceeding 25 per cent from amongst non-graduates to sit for written test. Such non-graduates should have passed matriculation exmination or its equivalent with English and Mathematics and should have obtained minimum of 50 per cent marks in aggregate.

Note: For sons/daughters of employees the minimum qualifications will be matriculation with English and Mathematics.

(iii) Mode of selection:

(a) Selected candidates numbering not more than five times the vacancies to be filled up are to be called for written test.

(b) Such test should be held preferably after the university and matriculation results are out simultaneously all over India.

(c) Local residents should get preference in recruitment.

(d) Examination papers to be set and marked at head office and valuation made by them.

(e) All examination papers should contain code numbers and should not contain candidates' names and roll numbers and should be sent by insured post to head office.

Interview:— Graduate candidates who have secured 45 per cent marks and non-graduate 40 per cent marks may be called lor interview in order of marks obtained in written test.

Interview should be taken by a committee of three senior officers of whom two must be from outside the group where the appointments are to be made.

Total marks set apart for interview should not be more than 20 per cent of the total marks or written and oral tests, i.e, hundred marks for written test and twenty-five marks for interview.

In addition to the written test, candidates for the posts of typists and stenographers will be required to undergo a typing and shorthand test. However, unless the post of a stenographer is specifically sanctioned by the head office, no aplications be invited for the purpose. All appointments of typists must be for combined post of typist-cum-clerk.

The minimum requirement of speed for typists is forty words of typing per minute and for a stenographer in addition a speed of taking dictation at hundred and ten words per minute.

In the case of sons of employees who are selected they should not be posted at the office where the father or any relation of theirs is employed but may be given a posting order in the same city in another office or in any other branch where there is vacancy. In this connexion, attention is drawn to the conditions mentioned in the application form whereby candidates will have already consented to be posted or transferred to any office of the bank in India.

(iv) Special rules of recruitment to clerical cadre governing sons/daughters of employees:

(a) 25 per cent of vacancies will be reserved for sons of employees. However, in the case of employees who do not have sons, their daughters' applications may be considered by the bank under this category to a limited extent at its sole discretion. If sufficient number of candidates are not available from amongst sons and daughters of employees in this special reserved category the bank will tilt the vacancies from the open list.

(b) To be qualified to be considered for appointment in the specifically reserved category the parent concerned should have put in fifteen years of uninterrupted service, and in order of preference to sons of employees who may have died while in service, retired nearing retirement and those serving the bank.

(c) The parent concerned will have to give a declaration that he has no other son or daughter already employed in the bank. However, this clause will not debar any candidate whose parent may be working in the bank from appearing in the open test and being selected on merits.

(d) Every candidate in the reserved category will have to appear in the written test and interview.

(e) A candidate in the reserved category, who secures 35 per cent in the written test will be considered for clerical appointment and one who has secured 25 per cent marks in the written test will be considered for appointment to godown and cash section if selected at the interview.

(B) Subordinate staff:

The first three clauses will be the same as for clerical staff.

(a) Application forms:

All candidates will have to apply in the regional language or English in their own handwriting. Incomplete forms will be rejected.

(b) Application files:

On receipt of applications from candidates in response to the advertisements, these should be serially numbered to the date of receipt at the group office and placed on special files, separate files being maintained for each category of staff as also for sons of employees and outsiders.

(c) Mode of selections:

(i) Qualifications:

Knowledge of regional language, both reading and writing except for armed guards and sweepers, matriculates will not be considered for appointment to sub-staff cadre. The maximum educational qualifications for being considered for appointment will be up to seventh class pass, which should at least be three years below the qualification for matriculation and he should have studied English for at least two years.

(ii) Age:

Minimum of eighteen years and maximum of twenty-five years, subject to relaxation of five years for sons of employees.

Note:— The age will be verified from school leaving certificate. In case of sweepers and perrash, horoscope coupled with medical check up to determine the age will be kept in the file for final record. For watch and ward staff maximum age limit for ex-servicemen will be forty-five years who should know the use of fire-arms.

(iii) Selection:

All candidates will have to appear in a written test to answer simple papers translated in vernacular on the line of sample papers prepared by head office. Papers will be marked by senior officers.

A candidate will have to obtain a minimum of 40 per cent marks in the open category and 30 per cent marks in the reserved category. Ex-servicemen will not be required to appear for the written test.

(iv) Special rules for recruitment to subordinate cadre governing sons of employees:

(a) 25 per cent vacancies will be reserved for sons of employees. If sufficient number of candidates are not available from amongst sons of employees to this special reserved category, the bank will fill the vacancies from the open list.

(b). To be qualified to be considered for appointment in the special reserved category the parent concerned should have put in nineteen years of uninterrupted service and in order of preference to sons of employees who may have died while in service, retired, nearing retirement and thoss serving the bank.

(c) The parent concerned will have to give a declaration that he has no other son already in the bank.”

3. The petitioners herein claiming to be entitled to the concessions afforded under the abovesaid rules, applied for the posts and took the written test on 19 October 1975. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent 1 called for interview candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, ex-servicemen and dependants of those killed in action, and after making the selection from amongst them, appointed them in the permanent vacancies. But so far as the petitioners herein and other candidates who belong to the category of children of the employees of the bank are concerned, they were not called for interview and none of them were appointed to any post. The petitioners who are already working on a temporary basis have all worked for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months. While so the respondents have published an advertisement in the daily newspapers on 5 May 1977, calling for applications for appoiatment to the posts of clerks and other subordinate staff and for this purpose, written test was also being conducted on 3 July 1977. From the rules of recruitment advertised it would appear that no posts have been reserved in favour of the children of the employees of the bank which is contrary to the circular referred to above and also the existing practice. The petitioners state that while they were within the age limit when they applied for the posts sought to be filled up in pursuance of the circular, dated 6 May 1968, they are now above the age limit and are not qualified to apply for the posts now advertised. It is contended that without declaring the result of the previous test, the respondents are not entitled to call for fresh applications and make appointments. The petitioners claim that as per the rules governing the appointments to the posts of clerks and subordinate staff in force on the date of the circular, 6 May 1968, they are entitled to be appointed on the basis of the results of the written test and interviews that are to be held in accordance with that circular. They, therefore, seek a writ of mandamus as stated above.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the bank while admitting all the facts stated by the petitioners, it was averred that while all the applicants for the general seats were asked to sit in separate rooms and take their written test, all the children of the employees of the bank were asked to sit in a different room and take their test. Similarly all the candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and candidates who were children of ex-servicemen or service-men who were killed in action were asked to sit in another room and take their written test. After the written test, it came to the notice of the bank that copying was resorted to by the children of the employees of the bank who were sitting in a separate room. The matter was, therefore, referred for investigation. As the investigation revealed that there was copying in the room where the children of the employees took the written test, the bank referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which has registered a case on 30 April 1977. That report is still awaited. The report of the investigating officer prima facie revealed that there was copying and the petitioners were not given any further temporary appointment. However, as the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation is still pending, the final results of the written test have hot been published. Since it was revealed that there was no copying in the rooms in which the candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and children of ex-servicemen or servicemen, who were killed in action, took their test, they were appointed on the basis of the results of the writen test and interview.

5. In the counter-affidavit it was also averred that the candidates applying for the test have only a right to be considered for appointment and have no right to be appointed to the post irrespective of the result. The board has considered the matter and decided that if as a result of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation all or any of the candidates are exonerated from copying and other malpractices, the results of such candidates should be published and appointments made in accordance with the rules. It is, however, stated that the the circular reserving 25 per cent of the seats for the children of the employees of the bank was later withdrawn as it was discriminatory and violalive of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was denied that the petitioners fulfilled the requirements of S. 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to be entitled to the benefit of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. There can be little doubt thaf once applications are called for recruitment to a particular post, that recruitment has to be completed in accordance with the rules governing the appointment to such posts as on the date of calling for the application. If the petitioners fulfil the qualifications prescribed for the post and are eligible to be appointed on the basis of the results of the written test and interview, then they have a right to be appointed irrespective of whether the concession granted under the rules then governing the post is in force or withdrawn subsequently. It is, however, stated in the counter-affidavit and not denied even by the petitioners that it was suspected that large scale copying was indulged in by the children of the employees of the bank who were made to sit in a separate room for taking their test and that matter was referred for investigation to an officer. That officer reported that there was copying. The bank, however, did nol choose to take any action on that report. It referred the matter for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation has not completed its investigation and submitted its report yet. Obviously candidates who have indulged in such malpractices and copying cannot be appointed to the post. The appointments, if any, have to be made on the basis of merit of the candidates who have not indulged in copying and subjected to such valid reservation as may have been made under the rules. We are not concerned in the writ petition about the reservation that has been made in favour of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and children of ex-servicemen and the children of those who have died in action. The petition is by the children of the employees of the bank in whose favour 25 per cent of the posts have been reserved, who have been granted concession in the matter of age and also educational qualification. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to publish the results after the investigation is completed to make the appointments. There can, therefore, be no objection to such a writ being issued. In fact the learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank Sri Subrahmanya Reddy also fairly conceded that they have no objection to making appointments to the posts in accordance with the circular issued by them, so long as any of the petitioners qualified for the post have not indulged in any malpracties or copying.

7. It is, however, seen that the reservation in favour children of the employees of the bank is a reservation which is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But Sri Jagannadha Rao learned counsel for the petitioners contends that reserving 25 per cent of posts in favour of children of the employees of the bank and guaranteeing them concession in the matter of age and educational qualifications does not violate either Art. 14 or Art. 16 of the Constitution and a writ ought to be issued. True, if there is no such violation the Court would undoubtedly issue the direction as prayed for, but we find it very difficult to uphold the contention of the petitioners that there is no violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rule which is already extracted above reserves 25 per cent of the posts in favour of the sons; this reservation is made (also) in favour of their daughters. While the minimum age of every other candidate applying for the post is prescribed as eighteen years and the maximum age as twenty-five years, in the case of children of employees it is relaxed by five years. So also in the matter of educational qualifications, while all others are required to possess a degree from a recognized university it is enough if the children of the employees of the bank pass matriculation examination with English and Mathematics. Further while from among the graduates only those who have secured 45 per cent of marks and above are called for interview, from among the non-graduates those who have secured 40 per cent of marks also are entitled to be called for interview. Further the candidates in this reserved category would be appointed even if they were to secure 35 per cent marks in written test, even those that have secured only 25 per cent would be considered for appointment to godown and cash sections, if selected at the interview. These substantial concessions in addition to the reservation of 25 per cent of posts give them an unfair advantage over all other candidates who hava to compete for the same post. This reservations of 25 percent of posts and the concessions that are allowed to them are not based on any unusual intelligible differentia. This reservation is based solely on the ground of descent. This reservation of 25 per cent of posts and the concessions to the children of employees of the bank has no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved in the matter of recruitment to the posts of clerks and subordinate staff of the bank. Any discrimination on ground of descent only is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens under Art. 16(2) of the Constitution and is void. The only exceptions to this rule enunciated under Arts. 16(3), 16(4) and 16(5) do not authorize any concession being given or reservation being made on the basis of descent to any person, viz., on the ground that he is the son of a particular individual or individuals who belong to a particular category.

8. In G. Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [A.I.R 1961 S.C 564], the Supreme Court while dealing with S. 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 3 of 1895, held that in so far as it makes discrimination on the ground of descent only it is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution and is void. It lays down that in choosing persons to fill the new offices, the Collector shall select only, from among the families of the last holders of the offices which have been abolished, the perons whom he may consider the best qualified. This was held to be a discrimination based on the ground of descent only and as such is violative of Art. 16(2) of the Constitution.

9. Sri Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to distinguish this decision by contending that reservation and certain concessions in favour of the children of the employees of the bank is only to the extent of 25 per cent and not of all the posts as was the case under S. 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Viilage Offices Act. That in our view does not make any difference for, with respect to these 25 per cent of the pasts, person other than the children of the employees of the bank is disentitled to apply or be appointed. Even if he is better qualified he would be rejected and that post would be filled up only by appointing a candidate belonging to the category of the children of the employees of the bank. Any such preference given in making the appointment to the post is nothing but a discrimination based solely on the ground of descent. It is immaterial whether all the posts are filled up based on such discrimination or only some of the posts. It is nonetheless an appointment made in violation of Art. 16(2) of the Constitution.

10. Sri Jagannadha Rao also contended that this reservation is not based on the ground of descent but is intended to secure a loyal and efficient service from the employees of the bank. It is a concession secured by the employees of the bank as a result of the bargain between the employees of the bank and its management and it had become a condition of service long before this bank and some other banks were acquired under the Banking Comparies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, 5 of 1970. According to him that rule is based on a valid cla sification, the object of which is to secure better service from all the employees by assuring them that their children could be given employment.

11. In Umesh Chandra v. V.N Singh [A.I.R 1968 Pat. 3], a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the reservation in favour of the children of the professors of the University of Patna was violative of Arts. 14 and 15. The Full Bench held:

“If the impugned law dealt with the conditions of service of the employees of the university there may be some support for the view that in such a statutory provision special facilities and concessions may be given to those employees who have rendered meritorious service. But here the impugned provision is in an Ordinance whose sole object is to provide for admission of students to the medical course. This sole purpose of the Ordinance cannot be lost sight of.

There is no rational nexus between securing admission of candidates to the medical college on the one hand and the meritorious employees of the university on the other. Moreover the impugned provision confers such a concession on the children of such employees and not directly on the employees. It is a concession given to them solely on account of their being the children of such employees which will amount to discrimination solely on the ground of descent and will offend Art. 14.”

This judgment of the Patna High Court was referred to by the Supreme Court in Chitra Ghose v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 228 : A.I.R 1970 S.C 35], with approval and distinguished in upholding rule 4 of Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi, prospectus with regard to admission to medical colleges which empowered the Central Government to nominate the students to fill up certain categories of candidates.

12. Sri Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.S Ms. & S. Ms. Association v. General Manager, Central Railway [A.I.R 1960 S.C 384], Govind Dattatry v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [A.I.R 1967 S.C 839], Panduranga Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission [A.I.R 1963 S.C 268], State of Jammu and Kashmir v. T.N Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19 : A.I.R 1974 S.C 1] and Amrit Lal v. Collector of C.E.C Revenue [(1975) 4 SCC 714 : A.I.R 1975 S.C 538]. We do not think it necessary to refer to these several decisions in detail. Suffice to note that all these decisions declare that there can be a reasonable classification which has a nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The classification of road-side station-masters, probationers, non-probationers, classification based on educational qualifications are all classifications made otherwise than on the ground of descent only and the same bears a nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. None of them are cases in which the classification was based solely on the ground of descent which is covered by Art. 16(2) of the Constitution. While justifiable classification is permitted under Arts. 14 to 16, a classification based solely on the ground of descent was never upheld by any Court.

13. Whatever may have been the position with regard to the validity of the rule before these banks were acquired under the said Act, inasmuch as all the e banks after being acquired under the said Act, have become “State” within the meaning of Art. 12, they would have to conform to the provisions of the Constitution of India and more especially those contained in Part III of the Constitution. While formerly the rules and regulations framed by the bank may have resulted in only the contractual obligations between the bank and the employees, now those rules and regulations and circulars which are continuing by virtue of S. 19(3) of the Act would be “law” and any law controvening the provisions of Part III of the Constitution would be void. The advertisement in question pursuant to which the petitioners have applied for the posts was issued in 1974, i.e, after the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, came into force and after the Central Bank was acquired under the said Act. The rules reserving certain percentage of posts and granting concessions in favour of the children of the employees being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 are void and cannot be given effect to. Whatever may be the merit of a classification in the matter of recruitment to a post on a ground not covered by Art. 16(2), any such consideration would have no relevance in respect of a discrimination based on the ground of descent covered by Art. 16(2). Dealing with a somewhat similar contention that the right vested in a village officer to the appointment of his sons as a village officer on his death, the Supreme Court held that the contention that Arts, 16 (1) and 16 (2) do not apply to the office, even though the office is an office under the State, is not correct. The Supreme Court categorically laid down that if an office in question is an office under the State it comes within the ambit of Art. 16. There the question was whether the office of Village Munsif was an office under the State. So also if the bank is a State within the meaning of Art. 16(2); any appointment to the bank must conform to Art. 16(2).

14. Sri Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, con fended that it is not open to the respondent-bank to challenge the rule reserving 25 per cent of posts in favour of the children of employees of the bank. He contends that inasmuch as the bank itself had issued these rules which have statutory force they are at least binding on it. The bank is estopped from challenging the rules made by it when pursuant to them the petitioners have applied for the post. It is true that ordinarily the respondent would be bound by the rules issued by it and would not be allowed to go back upon the representation made by it in issuing the advertisement and calling for applications on that basis. But as held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2547 of 1976, and batch, dated 23 February 1978, to which both of us are parties the Central Bank of India, which is a banking company acquired under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, is a “State” within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. As such any rule made by it which is in violation of or inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizen under Part III of the Constitution of India, would be void to the extent of such inconsistency. The petitioners who are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, seek the assistance of this Court and have invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution. When it comes to the notice of this Court that any writ, direction or order would result in the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to any citizen, it would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and be a party to the violation of the fundamental right which this Court is enjoined to protect. The fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen cannot be waived nor can the Court ignore their violation. A writ would be issued for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and not for their infringement. Merely because the respondent-bank has issued a rule reserving 25 per cent of the posts in favour of the children of the employees of the bank and the respondent is precluded from challenging its own action, it does not follow that the Court should lend assistance to the violation of a fundamental right and be a party to the perpetration of injustice on a large body of applicants for the posts who would be deprived of the appointment, if this rule reserving 25 per cent of posts which is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 is given effect to by way of a direction as prayed for by the petitioners. In our view, the mere fact that the respondent-bank had issued a rule reserving 25 per cent of posts in favour of the children of the employees of the bank, would not stand in the way of this Court refusing to grant the discretionary relief at the instance of one of the applicants who has acted on the basis of that rule and applied for the posts when such a direction would result in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

15. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Umesh Chandra v. V.N Singh [A.I.R 1968 Pat. 3] (vide supra), also observed that Art. 14 which would equally apply to infringement of Art. 15 being a command issued to the State, its infringement cannot be waived by any person. The Court cannot ignore the infringement and issue a command to the respondent to finalize the recruitment to the posts giving effect to the reservation to the children of the employees of the bank which violates Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The question of any estoppel in the matter of violation of fundamental rights cannot, therefore, arise. A fundamental right under Art. 14, being a command issued to the State, its infringement can neither be waived by any person, nor ignored by the Court and allowed to be violated by the “State” on the ground of estoppel.

16. As discussed above, the classification of the applicants into two categories, one category being of applicants who are not the sons or daughters of employees of the bank, and the other of sons and daughters of the employees of the bank, is a classification solely made on the basis of descent, which is directly violative of Art. 16(2) and not saved by any of the provisions thereof. It cannot, therefore, be upheld or given effect to. Even though the learned standing counsel for the bank did not contend for this position, so far as this recruitment is concerned, since the High Court, which is enjoined to protect the fundamental rights, cannot give any direction which would result in violation of the fundamental rights, we deem it our duty to refuse to give effect to rule 7 of the recruitment rules of the bank, which is void. However, merely because some of the candidates are alleged to have indulged themselves in copying at the written test, the whole written test cannot be scrapped or the recruitment stopped, resulting in grave injustice to several candidates who would have now become overaged and ineligible to apply for any other post. Since only 25 per cent of the posts are sought to be filled up under this rule of reservation it is only appointment to such posts that would have to be declared void. The appointment made to the other posts on the basis of other rules cannot be questioned. However, as written test has been taken by all the candidates, and such of those who are qualified in the light of the valid rules and are entitled to be interviewed, and are also entitled to be appointed on the basis of the result of the written test and interview, there shall be a direction to that effect.

17. It is, however, seen that rule 7A(IV)(c) entitles the children of the employees of the bank to compete even for the post which are not reserved for them. Rule 7A(IV)(c) reads as follows:

“The parent concerned will have to give a declaration that he has no other son or daughter allegedly employed in the bank. However, this clause will hot debar any candidate whose parent may be working in the bank from appearing in the open test and being selected on merits.”

Having regard to this rule, even the children of the employees of the bank were entitled under the rules then in force, to compete for all the posts. Only they were given some concessions and preferences in the matter of recruitment by way of reservation of 25 per cent of posts. Now that the said reservation and concessions are held to be void, they are entitled to be considered for all the posts in the general pool provided they fulfil the qualifications prescribed in that behalf.

18. The respondents are, therefore, directed to publish the results of the written test after the completion of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, in respect of such of those candidates who are found to have not indulged in malpractices, and complete their recruitment, ignoring the Rule of Reservation and Concessions in favour of the children of the employees of the bank. It is further made clear that even the children of the employees of the bank shall have the right to be considered for all the posts that are not otherwise validly reserved, i.e, not reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, children of ex-servicemen and those that were killed in action irrespective of whether they have applied for the posts in the general pool or not. The respondents will, therefore, consider the applications of the petitioners in the light of this judgment and make the appointments expeditiously.

19. No other points, other than those raised in the writ petition, are urged before us.

20. In the result, these two writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above and a direction shall issue accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200 in each.