The attorney general contended that since the issues raised in these petitions were covered by the Presidential reference now pending before a nine-judge bench, these petitions should either be tagged down with the Presidential reference or they should await the result of the Presidential reference.

A division bench comprising Justice S Saghir Ahmed and Justice K T Thomas rejected the contention of the attorney general and referred these petitions to a three-judge bench.

``In view of the important issues raised in these petitions, let them go to a larger bench,'' the judges observed.

The attorney general pointed out that the impression created during the last hearing was that the three pending orders, namely one by Mohan Lal Gupta, the otherby R K Singh and the third one by the Committee on Judicial Accountability, be either withdrawn or should await the result of the Presidential reference.

Earlier, Justice Saghir Ahmed lamented that nobody seemed to have been bothering about the plight of the litigants, their tears and the money they spend on litigation. The judge said, ``The sanctioned strength of the Allahabad High Court was 70, out of which 34 posts were vacant. In due course one more vacancy would fall vacant. When 50 per cent of the vacancies were not not filled, can you call it a high court?''

The attorney general replied that what could we do in the matter when the sanctity ``consultative process'' was being questioned and adjudicated by a nine-bench.

Sorabjee said that he had written a letter to the government for clearing those appointments of the high court where there was no controversy between the executives and the Chief Justice of India.