CHANDRA MOHAN versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 08-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 18 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRA MOHAN 
l'. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 
August 8, 1966. 
B 
(K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. S!KRI, 
V. RAMASWAMI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art" 233 to 237-Scope of-"Service of 
the Ul'liOn or of the State"-!/ includes any service or only Judicial Se,--
vice. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 132 and 133-Appea/ filed against 
all respo.ndents-Leave to appeal against some respondents not granted by 
High Court, but certificate misleading-G-rant of special leave by Suprenie 
Court. 
The pro<:edure for recruiting district judges in the State of U.P. was 
pr~ribed by the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules made by the Gover-
nor under Art. 309 of the Constitution. 
Under the Rules, the Governor 
decides on the number of candidates to be selected, prescribes the quali-
fications of the candidates, the High Court calls tor applications, the 
Selection Committee constituted under the. Rules screens the applications, 
gives interviews only to those persons who it thinks have the neccsaary 
qualifications and selects 
from 
among them 
suitable pe·rsons for ap-
pointment, and sends two lists to the High Court-a main and a 
supplementary list-the High Court submits to the Governor the names of 
candidates considered suitable from the lists, and thereafter, the Governor 
makes the appointments from the said lists. 
In 1961-62, the Registrar 
of the Allahabad High Court called for applications for recruitment to 
the cadre of the district judges from the members 
of the Bar of moro 
than 7 years' standing and from 
"judicial officers" \vho 
were members 
of the executive department discharging some revenue and magisterial 
duties. 
The rule> empowered the recruitment of district j"dg"" from 
such "judicial officers''. The Selection Committee selected 6 candidates--
3 from the Bar and 3 from the "judicial offieers"-and sent their names 
to the High Court. The Registrar of the High Court sent a cony of 
the report of the Committee to the Government mentioning that t.h~ High 
Court had approved the selection of the said candidate3. The appellant, 
a member of the U.P. Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and others filed 
petition in the High Court for the issue of an appropriate writ directing 
the Government 
not to make· the appointments pursuant 
to the 
said 
selectio~. The petitions were 
dismissed. 
On the application 
for leave 
to appeal to thi• Court, the High Court observed that the case of the 
Advocates did not raise any substantial question of law as 
to the inter-
pretation of the Constitution or any question of public importance, ~ut 
that the case of the "Judicial Officers" raised such questions. 
The High 
Court, however, issued a certificate in general terms that _the case '"a~ a 
fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. 
In appeal to this Court it \Vas contended by the "Advocate-recruits" 
that in view of the order on the application for leave, the appellant 
could not canvass 
the correctness of the judgment of the 
High Court 
in so far as it related to them; and the appellant contended that: 
(i) 
while under Art. 233(1) of the Constitution the Governor has to make 
the appointrne~ts in consultation with the High Court concerned, under 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1967] 1 s.c.a. 
the Rules he has to consult the Selection Committee constituted there· 
under, and therefore, the appointments made in consuJtation with two 
aUthorities instead of one as provided by the Constitution 
v.•ere illegal; 
that as a maller of fact, under the Rules, the High Court was only a 
traµsmitting authority while the Selection Committee was made the real 
consultative body; and (ii) the Governor had no power to appoint dis· 
triCt judges from the "judicial officers" as they were not members of the 
judicial service. 
HELD: (i) The case was a fit one for granting special leave to the 
appellant to appeal to this Court e\·en in so far as it related to the 
"advocate-recruits" after excusing the delay in filing the appeal. 
The arpellant was misled by the certificate issued by the High Court 
in genera terms as it appeared. to cover the entire case. 
If he went 
wrong in not scrutiniSing the order granting leave closely, the advocate-
respondents were equally negligent in not getting the certificate amend· 
ed. [82 BJ 
(ii) The Rules contravene the constitutional mandates of An. 233(1) 
and (2) and therefore the Rules as well as the appointments made there-
under were il

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.