SATYA NARAIN SINGH ETC. ETC. versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS., ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 27-11-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
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)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
112 
SATY A NARAIN SINGH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE 
AT ALLAHABAD & ORS., ETC. ETC. 
November 27, 1984 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMAJ:ll, JJ.J 
Constitution of India - Article 233 Appointment of District Judges-Inter-
pretation of - Persons already in service cannot be appointed District Judges by 
direct recruitment. Clause(2) ofart.233 is applicable only to persons not already 
in the Service of the Union or of the State - Service here means judicial service_ 
Requirement of seven years practice at bar necessary only in case of persons not 
a/ready in service. 
Tn response to an adverti sment by the High Court of Allahabad, the 
petitioners, who were members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service, 
applied to be appointed by direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher 
Judicial Service. 
The petitioners claimed that they had acquired 7 years 
of practice at the bar even before their appointment to that Service. The 
High Court held that n1embers of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service 
were not eligible to be appoin!ed by direct recruitment to Uttar Pradesh 
Higher Judicial Service. 
Before this Court the petitioners submitted 
that a construction of Art. 233 of the Constitution which would render 
a member of the Subordinate Judicial Service ineligible for appointment 
to the Higher Judidal Service by direct recruitment because of the addi-
tional experience ga•ned by him as a Judicial officer would be both 
unjust and paradoxical. 
Affirming the decision of the High Court and dismissing the 
G 
petitions, 
H 
HELD: Two points straightway project themselves when the two 
clauses of Art. 233 of the Constitution are read: 
The first clause deals 
with 'appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, 
district judges in any State' while the second clause is confined in its 
application to persons 'not al ready in the service of the Union or of the 
t ' 
• 
, 
' 
j 
f 
• 
s. N. SINGH v. f!IGH COURT, ALLAH,\BAP (Chlnnappa Rtddy, J.) 
1 I3 
State'. 
'Service of the Union or of the State, has been interpreted by 
this Court to mean judicial service. 
While the first clause n1akes 
consultation by the Governor of the State with the High Court necessary, 
the second clause requires that the High Court must recommend a 
person for appointment as a District Judge. 
It is only in respect of 
the persons covered by the second clause that there is a requirement 
that a person shall be eligible for appointment as District Judge if he 
has been an advocate or a pleader for not less than 7 years. 
In other 
words, in the case of candidates who are not members of a Judicial 
Service they must have been advocates or pleaders for not (less than 7 
years and they have to be recommended by the High Court before they 
may be appointed as District Judges, while in the case of candidate~ who 
are members of a Judicial Service the 7 years rule has no application 
but there has to be consultation with the High Court. A clear distinction 
is made between the two sources of recruitment and the dichotomy is 
maintained. 
The two streams are separate until they come together by 
appointment. [116 D-0] 
, 
Ramtshwar Dayal v. Stat• of Punjab, [1961] 2 SCR 874 and Chander Mohan 
v. Stat• ofUttar Praduh, [1967] I SCR 77, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 16087 of 1984, 
728 ofl981 and 15926of1984. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution ofJndia. 
L. N. Sinha, Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Arvind Kumar, R.D. 
Upadhya and C.K. Ratnapatkhi for the Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 
15926/84 & 16087 /84. 
K.K. Venugopal, Arvind Kumar and Mrs. Laxmi Arvind for 
the Petitioner in WP. No. 728 of 1981. 
Gopal Subramanlam and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CmNNAPPA RIIDPY, J. The petitioners in the several writ 
petitions now before us as well as the appellants in Civil Appeal 
No. 548 of 1982 and the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 6346-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
114' 
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS 
• 
(1985) 2 S.C.R .• 
6351 of 1980 which we dismissed on 11th October, 1984 were 
members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service in 1980 when all of 
them, in response to an advertisement by the High Court of 
Allahabad, applied to be appointed by direct recruitment to the 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. They claimed that each of 
them had completed 7 years of practice at the bar even before 
their appointment to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.