LexMANI SUBRAT JAIN ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
361 MANI SUBRAT JAIN ETC. v • . STAIB OF HARYANA AND ORS. December 9, 1976 [A. N. RAY, CJ .• M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH JJ.] ColUlltutlon of Indio-Writ -of mandamu:t, when can be mlN for-Article 233,. 1eope of-Direct recruitment of Di.rtrict J11dges--Whether Governor bound to- llCCept recommendation of High Court. The Haryana High Court invited applications and interviewed candidates foc fillln,. np vacancie& in the quota of direct recruits from tho bar. in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. Tho umes of the appellants were recommended to the State _ Government who rejected them and asked tho High Court to invite applications again. Accepting the position, the High Court issued the advertise~ menta. The appellants filed petitiollJ agairut the order rejecting their names and l..il:od for mandamu.J for appointmenL Tho. n.me were dismiued by the High Court oa the ll!"Ound that the appcllanto had ao locUJ sttmdl. Diami•ainz tho .ppU.t.. tho Court, Hu.D i (I) Thero mwt be a judicially onforceablo right u well u. a legally prcMected right before OJIC 1ufferia1 a legal Jrieyance can a.!t for a mantiamll.1. A penon can be ta.id to be aggrieved only when he is denied a lei:al right by some one who ~ a legal duty to do aom.ething or to ·abstain frODJ. doing somctklq. (3620-H. 363A-BJ , • . Stote of Haryan• ... SM~a.rh ChalUlu Marwaha & Or>. [1914) 1 S.C.R. 165; Jasihlli Uotibhai Desai "'· Ro~han Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed d Ors. [1976] 3 S.C.R. 58; Halsbury'• Law• of England 4th Ed. Vol. I, pargraph 122 and Ferris Extr•-orrlina"Y ugal Remedi", paragraph 198, applied •. A B c D E (2) The initial appointmeot of District Judges under Article 233 is within· the: exclusive jurisdiction of the Go"Yermnent after consultation with the High Govrt though the consultation does :aot mean that the GoYernor must accept whateTer advice or recommendation is given by the High Court. Article 233 only requires that the Governor should obtain from the High Court its views- ca the merit.! and demcrita of perso:m, aelected for promotion. ud direct recruit.. F Sl<lll. [363A·B. F-OJ Chandra Mohan ... Stale of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77; Chandramouleshwar Pra.Jad T. Patna High Court & Ors. (1970] 2 S.C.R. 666 and A. Panduranga Rao v. Stal< of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 620, referred to. - 0:vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.1987-1988 of 1976. (Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 25-3-1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1228 & 1229 of 1975). G. L. Singh, in CA 1988/76 with Hardev Singh, B. Datta and G N. S. Sodhi, for the appellants. R Niren De; Attorney General with Devan Chelan Dar, Adv. Gene- ral, Prem Malhotra and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Anand Swarup, and Mrs. S. Bhlmdare, tor rei.pondent No. 3. A B c D E F G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals are by special leave against the judg- ment dated 25 March, 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petitions. The ap~llants in the writ petitions asked for a mandamus direct- ing Respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint the appellants to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The appellants also asked for a mandamus or an appropriate writ quashing the orders of Res- pondents No. 1 and 2 whereby the High Court was informed that the Government was not prepared to appoint the appellants to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Haryana. Respondent No. 2 is the Chief Minister of Haryana. Respondent No. 3 is the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the petitions on th~ ground that the appellants had no locus standi to file the petitions. The reason given by the High Court is that the appellants were not appointed and they had no right to be appointed. They had also no right to know why they were not appointed. The High Court by letter dated 19 February, 1972 invited appli- cations from eligible members of the Bar to fill up two vacancies in the quota of direct recruits from the Bar in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. The High Court called for interview 9 candidates on 18 October, 1972. · The High Court thereafter recommended to the Haryana Govern- ment the names of the appellants for appointment as District/ Addi- tional District &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.