As per case facts, petitioners filed a Writ Petition challenging orders granting selection grade and super-time scale to respondent 3 and others, alleging arbitrary and unconstitutional criteria violating Article 16. ... They contended that respondent 3 was promoted over senior judges without proper eligibility and that the High Court's criteria for promotion were inconsistent with Justice Jagannatha Shetty Commission recommendations. They sought their own promotion to similar grades. The question arose whether the High Court's criteria for granting selection grade and super-time scale were valid and if the assessment of judicial officers, including respondent 3, was fair and lawful, considering seniority and eligibility. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that judicial review is limited to the process and found no arbitrariness or irrationality in the High Court's actions. It held that the High Court rightly applied existing service rules and guidelines, as the Justice Jagannatha Shetty Commission's recommendations had not yet been formally incorporated into rules. The Court affirmed that officers on deputation are eligible for consideration, there is no minimum service period required for super-time scale, and the assessment of annual confidential reports and overall performance by the Committee and Full Court was just, without any vitiating infirmity.