9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the locus standi of the appellants to file writ petitions for mandamus, the authority of the Governor to accept recommendations for appointment as District Judges, and the role of the High Court in recommending candidates for appointment. Locus Standi of Appellants: The appellants sought a mandamus for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges, challenging the rejection of their names by the Government. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that the appellants lacked locus standi as they were not appointed and had no enforceable right to be appointed or to know the reasons for non-appointment. Governor's Authority and High Court's Role: The initial appointment of District Judges falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government after consultation with the High Court. The Governor is not obligated to accept the High Court's recommendations, as observed in previous court decisions. While the High Court can recommend candidates for promotion and direct recruitment, the Governor is not bound to accept these recommendations without reason. High Court's Peculiar Attitude: The High Court's actions were deemed peculiar as it initially supported the appellants' candidature despite the Government's rejection of the recommendations. The Court criticized the High Court for taking a partisan stance and supporting specific candidates, highlighting the inconsistency in its approach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the writ petitions due to the appellants' lack of locus standi. The Court reiterated the Governor's discretion in accepting recommendations for District Judge appointments and emphasized the need for a legally enforceable right before seeking mandamus relief. The High Court's role in recommending candidates was clarified, emphasizing that the Governor is not bound to accept these recommendations without providing reasons.
|
