SH. P.K. SARIN AND ANR. ETC. ETC versus STATE OF U.PAND ORS ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 16-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t• 
) 
SH. P.K. SARIN AND ANR. ETC.ETC 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.PAND ORS ETC. 
DECEMBER 16, 1994 
[A.M AHMADI, CJ AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, J.] 
B 
Constitution of India 1950; Articles 50, 233, 234, 235, and 236-237-
Powers of Government-Whether the Governor could transform the 
existing UP Judicial Officers Service into Judicial Service of the State 
alongside the existing UP Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Held: Article 
237 of the Constitution enables the Governor to apply the provisions of C 
Constitution to certain class or classes of Magistrates and not to any other 
class or classes of Officers. 
UP Higher Judicial Service Rules 4, 5 and 6. 
District Judges-Recruitment of Criteria for filling up vacancies. 
D 
The appellants are members of the U.P Civil Service (Judicial 
Branch) Nyayik Sewa. Candidates for recruitment of District Judges in 
the State of U.P under the U.P Higher Judicial Service Rules, could be 
drawn for three sources namely members of the bar, Judicial Officers, 
discharging Magisterial and some revc'1ue duties and by promotion E 
from members of U.P Civil Service (Judicial Branch). 
In Chandra Mohan v. State of UP., [1967) 1 SCR 77 the U.P. Higher 
Judical Service Rules were struck down as unconstitutional and certain 
appointments made were declared bad. It was emphasized that in view 
of the provisions of Article 50 and Articles 233 and 237 of the F 
Constitution, the appointment of District Judges could be made from 
two sources only viz.; Service of the Union or State and members of 
Bar. The service of Union or State did not mean every service, but only 
judicial service of Union or State as defined in Article 326 (b) of the 
Constitution. 
G 
In order to do justice to Judicial Officers appointed before 2.10.67 
Governor issued two notifications dt. 12.3.75 and 21.3.75 under article 
237 of the Constitution directing that on the date of notification the 
provisions of Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution of India would 
apply to Judicial Magistrates (including Chief Judicial Magistrate) who H 
661 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
are judicial officers as they apply to persons appointed to Judicial 
Service of the state subject to the exceptions; (i) Members of Judicial 
Officers Service shall Constitute a Judical Service to fill the post of 
Additional Sessions Judge; and (ii) U.P. Judicial Officers Service shall 
be a service distinct and separate from U.P. Civil Service (Judical 
Branch). 
B 
By notification dt. 21.3.75, issued under Article 309 read with Art. 
233 of the Constitution of India U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 
1975 were framed. Under Rule 4, the Higher Judicial Service consists 
of a single cadre comprising the posts of District and Sessions Judge 
and Additional District and Sessions Judge. The recruitment to the 
C 
service is to be made by direct recruitment of pleaders and advocates of 
not less than seven years standing and by promotion of confirmed 
member of U.P. Nyayik Sewa with not less than seven years service in 
the cadre. By this notification Judicial Magistrate and Judicial Officers 
were made eligible for appointment to the post of Additional Sessions 
Judge. 
D 
By the two notifications the Judicial Officers btcome eligible for 
appointment only to the post of Additional Sessions Judge and the 
judicial Officers Service became a third source for recruitment. 
Aggrieved by these two notifications, the petitioners and others 
preferred writ petitions before the High Court and the same were 
E 
disposed of on the basis of the judgment in Dineshchander Srivastava 
and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1977) ALL. 310. Hence this appeal. The 
writ petitions have been filed under Article 32. 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petitions, this Court 
HELD: 1. Much before the issuance of the impugned notification, 
the Government by notification dated September 30, 1967 issued under 
Article 237 of the Constitution, had directed separation of the Judicial 
Magistrates/Judicial Officers from the Executive who were thereafter 
placed under the Administrative control and superintendence of the 
High Courts with effect from October 2, 1967. Thereafter the 
Government stopped recruitment to the Judicial Officers Service. On 
the other hand they continued to remain ineligible for appointment to a 
post in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service by the dictate of Chander 
Mohan's case. The Judical Officers Service thereupon became a 
suffocated and 

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