GOVT. OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus DAYANAND SINGH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 29-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 803 
GOVT. OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
DAYANAND SINGH ETC. ETC. 
(Civi!AppealNos. 9921-9923 of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 
[J, CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Judicial Service: Reservation - Service rules amended by 
appellant-State government providing for reservati0'!1 of posts in 
iudicial services in favour of backward classes - High Court, by 
impugned order, quashed the impugned Rules mainly on the ground 
that the amendments were not preceded by appropriate consultation 
with the High Court as contemplated u/Arts. 233 and 234 - On 
appeal, held: The consultation which preceded the amendments 
certainly fell short of the requisite standards of consultation 
necessary in the context - Impugned Rules declared illegal and 
unconstitutional - There is a huge number of vacancies in the 
iudicial services in the appellant-State, however, in view of pendency 
of the present litigation, the process for filling up of vacancies with 
respect to recruitment process which had started in the interregnum 
but was put on hold, be taken up expeditiously - Bihar Superior 
Judicial Service Rules, 1951 - r.4A - Bihar Civil Services (Judicial 
Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1965 - r.3A - Constitution of India -
Arts. 233 and 234. 
Reservation - In Judicial Service - Role/power of Executive 
vis-a-vis Judiciary - Constitutional imperatives and limitations -
Discussed - Held: Under the scheme of the Constitution, Executive 
is not the only authority to formulate a policy for reservation - It is 
under a constitutional obligation to consult the High Court, both 
for framing and giving effect to such policy. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In 2009, the State of Bihar amended the Rules 
framed under the proviso to Article 309 known as (i) Bihar 
Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951, (ii) Bihar Civil Services 
(Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1965 by introducing Rule 
4A and Rule 3A respectively providing for reservation of posts 
803 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
in favour of various backward classes of citizens.[Para 6](809-B-
C] 
2.1 The High Court quashed the two notifications of the 
State of Bihar by which the impugned Rules were made. The 
decision rested mainly on the finding that the amendments were 
B 
not preceded by appropriate consultation with the High Court 
contemplated under Articles 233 and 234. [Para 7][809-C-D] 
2.2 The High Court was right in holding that the consultation 
which preceded the amendments certainly fell short of the 
requisite standards of consultation necessary in the context and 
c that the two impugned Rules are required to be declared illegal 
and unconstitutional. [Para 10][810-E-F] 
3.1 It is clear from the stand of the Government of Bihar 
that as a matter of policy there is a need for providing appropriate 
reservations in favour of the various backward classes of citizens 
D even in the JUDICIAL SERVICES of the State of Bihar. 
However, under the scheme of the Constitution, the Executive 
is not the only authority to formulate such policy or to give effect 
to. The Executive is under a constitutional obligation to consult 
the High Court both for framing and giving effect to such policy 
E 
of providing reservations in the JUDICIAL SERVICES. 
[Para 
15][811-F-G) 
State of Bihar & Another v. Bal Mukund Sah & Others 
(2000) 4 SCC 640 : 2000 (2) SCR 299 - relied on. 
3.2 The assessment of the existence of the need for 
providing reservation and matters incidental thereto is essentially 
F 
the function of the Legislature or the Executive, as the case may 
be, and in the realm of policy choice. But the power to frame the 
policy is structured by certain constitutional imperatives and 
limitations, viz. (i) the identification of the existence of backward 
classes in the State, (ii) the formation of the opinion that such 
G classes are not adequately represented in the JUDICIAL 
SERVICES of the State (iii) the determination of the question as 
to what would be the appropriate percentage of reservation 
required to be made with reference to the JUDICIAL SERVICE 
consistent with the obligation to maintain the efficiency of the 
JUDICIAL SERVICES. Such assessments are required to be 
H 
made on objective and rational considerations consistent with 
GOVT. OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. DAYANAND 
805 
SINGH ETC. ETC. 
the constitutional obligations of both the Executive and Judicial A 
branches of the State. It i

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