A. PANDURANGA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 620 · Decided: 02-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

620 
A. PANDURANGA RAO 
V. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
September 2, 1975 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Constitudon of lndi~1-Art. 233(2)-SC'ope of. 
Under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution a person not already in service 
of the Union or of. the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a Districtl 
Judge, if he has been for not less than 7 years an advocate or pleader and is 
recommended by the High Court for appointment. 
After interviewing a large number of candidates to fill six ,posts of District 
Judges the High Court recommended six persons as the most suitable candi-
dates from among the applicants. The appellant was one of them. This recom-
mendation having leaked out, the Government requested the High Court to send 
a list of persons whom the High Court considered to have reasonable claims 
to the appointment. The High Court sent the entire list of the candidates 
interviewed by it with the marks obtained by them, but without offering any 
remarks. 
Treating the entire list of candidates sent by the High Court a!; candi-
dates recommended by it in the order of merit, respondents 3 to 6 were ~elected, 
A 
B 
c 
in addition to two candidates earlier recommended by the High Court. The 
appellant's name did not find place in the final list. 
He, therefore' moved 
D 
the High Court contending that respondents 3 to 6 were appointed in violation 
of the provisions contained in Art. 233. 
The High c·ourt dismissed the petition 
holding that the entire list of the candidates should be taken as recommended 
by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal to thi~ Court, 
HELD: (1) In the case of appointment of District Judges from the Bar 
it is not open to the Government to choose a candidate for appointment unl~ss 
E 
and until his name is recommended by the High Court. The word 'recommend' 
means "suggest as fit for employment." 
(2) The Government was not bound to· accept all the recommendations made 
by the High Court but could tell the High Court its reasons for not a-:cepting 
its recommendations in regard to certain persons. If the High Court agreed 
with the reasons in case of a particular person the recommendation in bis case 
stood withdrawn and there was no question of appointing him. 
But it 'vas cer-
tainly wrong and incompetent for the Government to write to the High Court 
and ask it to send. the list of persons whom it considered to have re<1sonable 
claim to the appointment. It was very much wrong on the part of the High 
Court to forward the entire list of the candidates interviewed with the marks 
obtained by them and adding at the same time that the High Court had 
no 
further remarks. to offer. The reply sent by 1he High Court was by no rneans 
a 
recommendation of the High c·ourt of all the candidates interviewed, that all 
of them had reasonable claims or in other words were fit to be appointed 
as 
DistriCt Judges. 
[623 H; 624 B, D-E] 
Chandra A1ohan v. State of Uttar Pradesfa & Ors" [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77, referr:-
ed to. 
(3) Respondents 3 to 61 were· not eligible to be appointed as District Judges 
as their names had never been recommended by the High Court. [625-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2059 of 1974. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment aud Order dated the 10th 
June, 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 895 
of 1974. 
F 
G 
H 
..... 
' 
• 
l 
I I 
• 
' 
l 
B 
A. P. RAO v. A. P. 'STATE (Untwalia, ·1.) 
621 
P. A. Chowdhary and K. Rajendra Chau<Qiury, for the appellant. 
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for respondent No. 1. 
A. V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for respondent No. 2. 
G. Narasimhulu, for respondents Nos. 3, 5 and 6. 
G. N. Rao, for respondent No. 4. 
A. V. K. Rao, the intervener, appeared in person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-In this appeal by special leave we are once again 
called upon to lay down the meaning and scope of Article 233 of the 
C 
Constitution of India relating to the appointment of District Judges. 
This Article alongwith other Articles in Chapter VI of Part VI of the 
Constitution came up for consideration and was interpreted by this Court 
on several occasions in the past, yet, a Bench of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh in its judgment under appeal felt persuaded to take 
a wholly erroneous view as to the meaning of the Article and committed 
' 
a serious error in the application of the principles of law settled by this 
./ 
D 
Court to the facts of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.