1976 (10) TMI 162 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of U.P. Government Notification No. 41/13/1968-Appointment-4, dated March 12, 1975.
2. Validity of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
3. Eligibility of Judicial Magistrates for appointment to the post of Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Interpretation of Articles 233, 234, 236, and 237 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of U.P. Government Notification No. 41/13/1968-Appointment-4, dated March 12, 1975:

The petitioners, members of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch), challenged the notification issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Article 237 of the Constitution. This notification directed that the provisions of Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution and any rules made thereunder apply to Judicial Magistrates, making them eligible for appointment to the post of Additional Sessions Judge. The court held that the Governor has wide powers under Article 237 to apply the provisions of Chapter VI to any class of Magistrates, thereby integrating them into the judicial service of the state. The notification was deemed valid as it aimed to separate the judiciary from the executive, in line with Article 50 of the Constitution.

2. Validity of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975:

The petitioners also challenged the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, which regulated recruitment and appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service. Rule 4 established a single cadre comprising District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges. Rule 5 laid down two sources of recruitment: direct recruitment of pleaders and advocates with at least seven years of practice and promotion of confirmed members of the U.P. Nyayik Sewa and Judicial Officers. Rule 6 prescribed a quota for recruitment from these sources. The court found that these rules were valid and did not contravene Articles 233 or 236 of the Constitution, as the Judicial Officers were now part of the judicial service following the notification under Article 237.

3. Eligibility of Judicial Magistrates for Appointment to the Post of Additional Sessions Judge:

The petitioners contended that Judicial Magistrates did not fall within the definition of "judicial service" under Article 236(b) and were thus ineligible for appointment as Additional Sessions Judges. The court rejected this argument, stating that the notification under Article 237 effectively integrated Judicial Magistrates into the judicial service. Consequently, they became eligible for such appointments. The court emphasized that the Constitution allows for a judicial service comprising both civil and criminal wings, and the notification did not enlarge the definition of judicial service but merely applied the existing provisions to the Magistrates.

4. Interpretation of Articles 233, 234, 236, and 237 of the Constitution:

The court extensively analyzed Articles 233, 234, 236, and 237. Article 233 pertains to the appointment of District Judges, Article 234 to appointments to the judicial service other than District Judges, and Article 236 defines "District Judge" and "judicial service." Article 237 empowers the Governor to apply these provisions to Magistrates. The court held that the Governor's notification under Article 237 brought the Magistrates within the scope of judicial service, making them eligible for promotion to posts like Additional Sessions Judge. The court also clarified that the term "judicial service" in Article 236(b) should be interpreted to include both civil and criminal judicial posts, and the word "and" in the definition could be read as "or" to reflect the legislative intent.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the impugned notification and the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, were valid. The Judicial Magistrates, following the notification under Article 237, became part of the judicial service and were eligible for appointment as Additional Sessions Judges. The petitions were dismissed with costs.