9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the field of recruitment to the cadre of District Judges. 2. Constitutionality of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules. 3. Validity of appointments made under the said Rules. 4. Interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution regarding consultation requirements. 5. Eligibility of "judicial officers" for appointment as District Judges. 6. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. Definition and scope of "District Judges" under Article 236. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of the Field of Recruitment to the Cadre of District Judges: The appeals raised the question of the scope of the field of recruitment to the cadre of District Judges in Uttar Pradesh. The recruitment process involved applications from Barristers, Advocates, Vakils, Pleaders, and "judicial officers" (executive department members performing revenue and magisterial duties). The Selection Committee selected six candidates, including three Advocates and three "judicial officers." The High Court approved these selections, leading to petitions challenging the appointments. 2. Constitutionality of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules: The appellant argued that the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules violated Article 233 of the Constitution by requiring the Governor to consult both the High Court and a Selection Committee, rather than solely the High Court. The Court held that the Rules, which reduced the High Court to a transmitting authority for the Selection Committee's recommendations, contravened the constitutional mandate of Article 233(1), which requires the Governor to appoint District Judges in consultation with the High Court alone. 3. Validity of Appointments Made Under the Said Rules: The Court found that the appointments made under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules were illegal. The Rules allowed the Selection Committee to play a significant role in the selection process, which was contrary to the constitutional requirement of consultation with the High Court. Consequently, the appointments of respondents 5, 6, and 7 (judicial officers) were invalid. 4. Interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution Regarding Consultation Requirements: Article 233(1) mandates that the Governor appoint District Judges in consultation with the High Court. The Court emphasized that this consultation should be exclusive and not involve any other authority, such as a Selection Committee. The Rules violated this mandate by involving the Selection Committee, making the consultation with the High Court an empty formality. 5. Eligibility of "Judicial Officers" for Appointment as District Judges: The Court addressed whether the Governor could appoint "judicial officers" (executive department members) as District Judges. Article 233(2) specifies two sources for recruitment: the judicial service and the Bar. The Court held that "the service" mentioned in Article 233(2) refers exclusively to the judicial service, not any executive service. Therefore, the appointment of "judicial officers" as District Judges was unconstitutional. 6. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: The appellant argued that excluding members of the judicial service from direct recruitment while allowing "judicial officers" violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court did not need to address this issue explicitly, as it had already determined that the Rules were unconstitutional and the appointments invalid. 7. Definition and Scope of "District Judges" under Article 236: Article 236 defines "District Judges" and "judicial service." The Court interpreted "judicial service" as a service exclusively consisting of persons intended to fill judicial posts, including District Judges. This interpretation supported the conclusion that only members of the judicial service or the Bar could be appointed as District Judges, not "judicial officers" from the executive branch. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules were constitutionally void and the appointments made under these Rules were illegal. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to make any appointments by direct recruitment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service based on the invalid selections. The appeal was allowed, and costs were awarded to the appellant.
|
