STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus BATUK DEO PATIL TRIPATHI & ANR.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 21-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI, P.S. KAILASAM, V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
I 31 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
A 
v. 
BATUK DEO PATIL TRIPATHI & ANR. 
February 21, 1978 
(M. H. BEG, C.J., Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI,_P. S. 
B 
KAILASAM, V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] 
Co111vulsory retirement of a District Judge from 
service on the opinion 
recorded by the Administrative Committee constituted under rule 1 of Chapter 
III of the Rules of the Allahabad High Court, 1952 framed under Art. 225 of 
the Constitution, whether valid-Authorising the 
Administrative 
Committe~ 
.consis1f11g of its own judges does not an1ou111 to self-abnegation 
of the High 
Court's powers. 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 216, 225 and 235-The High 
Courts 
have the power to frame rules for regulating the manner in which the control 
vested in it niay be exercised. 
Ch·i! Service Regulations, Art. 465, 465A-Powers of Gorernment to com-
pulsorily retire. 
The Allahabad High Court, in exercise of powers conferred upon it by Arl. 
225 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling it in that behalf has 
framed Rules, known as the Rules of Court, 1952. Under Rule 1 of Chapter 
III of the Rules, an Administrative Committee composed of the Chief Justice, 
the- Judge· in the Administrative Department and five other judges appointed by 
the- Chief Justice was constituted to act for the Court. Under Rule 7, all matters 
laid before the Administrative Committee and the manner in which those 
matters- were disposed of are to be circulated in a statement to all the Judges of 
the Court for their information. 
· 
D 
E 
In one of the meetings of the Administrative Committee of the High Court 
which \Vas held on January 9, 1974, it was resolved by the Committee that res-
pondent NO. 1 should be retired' compulsorily ftom service. The Registrar 
of the High Court communicated the decision of that Committee to the State 
Glivernment on January 15, 1974 and thereafter on January 17, 1974 circulated 
the minutes of the Committee's meeting to the other judges of the High Court 
for ''their information". The Governor of U.P. accepted the recommendation 
F 
of the Administrative Committee and retired respondent 1 compt'tlsorily by an 
order doted February 27, 1975 . 
. _ Respondent 1 assailed the said orders by an application under Art. 226, 
mte'r-Cilia, on the ground that "the order is illegal inasmuch as it was passed· on 
the recommendation of the Administrative Committee, while Art. 23 3 of the 
Constitution requires consultation by the Governor with the entire High Court 
aild not with a Committee consisting of a few Judges of the High Court". This 
ground found. favour ~ith the Division Bench which heard it. 
But considering 
G 
that ~uch a view. was h~ely to upset the settled practice of the Court and that it 
was; likely to be tn. conflict with that Court's decision in Civil Misc. No. 1254 of 
68 dt. 23-2:70, the_Y directed t~at !he papers of the case be placed before . the 
learned Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench to consider the question 
"whetlier in view of Art. 233 of the Constitution consultation with the entire 
High Court is necessary before making an order of compulsory retirement agairtst 
the District Judge ?" 
Tht;: _Division Bench and initially the FUU Bench heard arguments on the 
II 
suppos1t1on, that the_ ~ewer to retire a District Judge· compulsorily is an incident 
of t~e:powet of a~pomtment contained in Art. 233(1) of the Constitution which 
proVides· that appointments of persons to be and the posting and promotion of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 S.C;R. 
District Judge in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in con-
sultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to sucb state. 
After the Full Bench reserved its judgment this Court held in liigh Cour/ of 
Punjab and Haryana v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1975] 3 S.C.R. 365 that 
compulsory retirement of a District Judge is not an incident of the power of 
appointments conferred by Art. 233 of the Constitution but is' an incident of the 
control rested in the High Court by Art. 235. Consequently, the Full Bench 
reframecl the question referred to it as "whether a District Judge can be 
com-
pulsorily retired from service on the opinion recorded by 
the Administrative 
Committee constituted under Rule I of Chapter Ill of the Rules of the Court ? 
The Ful1 Rench also framed an additional question viz. "Whether circuJation of 
a statement to all the Judges of the Court showing what

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