9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority to appoint and transfer judicial officers. 2. Validity of the High Court's orders regarding the transfer of judicial officers. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court over administrative posts within the judiciary. 4. Implementation of the High Court's transfer orders by the government. Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority to Appoint and Transfer Judicial Officers: The central issue revolves around the authority to appoint and transfer judicial officers within the Orissa Superior Judicial Service. The cadre includes both judicial and administrative posts. According to Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice has the exclusive power to appoint the Registrar of the High Court. The Governor holds the power to appoint secretaries to the government. Historically, the Governor exercised the power to transfer district judges in consultation with the High Court, a practice upheld until the Supreme Court's decision in the State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad ([1967] 1 S.C.R. 454), which vested the power of transfer in the High Court under Article 235. 2. Validity of the High Court's Orders Regarding the Transfer of Judicial Officers: The High Court's policy decision in February 1965 aimed to recall judicial officers from administrative posts after three years to prevent them from losing touch with judicial work. Despite repeated requests, the government did not comply. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ranga Mahammad's case, the High Court unilaterally ordered the transfer of several officers on October 10, 1966, which included: - Shri K.B. Panda as law secretary. - Shri B.K. Patro as district and sessions judge of Ganjam-Boudh. - Shri T. Misra as superintendent and legal remembrancer. - Shri K.K. Bose as district and sessions judge of Mayurbhanj-Keonjhar. - Shri P.K. Mohanti as deputy law secretary. - Shri P.C. Dey as district and sessions judge of Bolangir-Kalahandi. The High Court's orders were notified in the Orissa Gazette, but the government refused to implement them, leading to the filing of petitions for a writ of mandamus and quo warranto. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court Over Administrative Posts Within the Judiciary: The High Court argued that it had the authority to fill administrative posts included in the judicial service cadre, citing the decisions in Bagchi's and Ranga Mahammad's cases. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's control under Article 235 pertains to judicial posts and not administrative posts within the secretariat. The High Court's interpretation was deemed incorrect, as the posts of law secretary, deputy law secretary, and superintendent and legal remembrancer are not district courts or courts subordinate to district courts under Article 235. 4. Implementation of the High Court's Transfer Orders by the Government: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within its powers to recall and post judicial officers to district courts, as there was no fixed period for their administrative postings. However, the High Court exceeded its authority by transferring officers to administrative posts within the secretariat. Despite this, the government implemented the High Court's orders after the High Court's decision on March 6, 1967. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders regarding the recall of officers to judicial posts but invalidated the transfers to administrative posts, noting that these should be managed by mutual understanding between the High Court and the government. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the High Court's ruling that the officers had no authority to hold their posts after October 10, 1966. It upheld the High Court's power to recall officers to judicial posts but invalidated its orders transferring officers to administrative posts within the secretariat. The judgment emphasizes the need for cooperation between the High Court and the government to avoid conflicts and ensure public interest. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
