P K SARIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of matters comprising a Civil and a few writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, have a common aim and therefore can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. Necessary facts can be gathered from the Civil focussing the issue.

(2.) The appellants are members of the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch "nyayik Sewa"). They were writ petitioners in one of the many writ petitions preferred before and disposed of by the Allahabad High court, governing judgment of which is in Dinesh Chander Srivastava v. State of U. P. In sum that judgment is under appeal. The cause settled therein was the one which arose as an aftermath of Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P. and the steps taken by the State of U. P. in pursuance thereof.

(3.) Candidates for recruiting District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, under the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, framed by the government under Article 309 of the Constitution, could be drawn from three sources i. e. members of the Bar, Judicial Officers (a misleading expression) who are members of the Executive Department discharging magisterial and some revenue duties, and by promotion from members of U. P. Civil Services (Judicial Branch) under the control of the High court. Six appointments from two of the aforedescribed services, i. e. , three from the Bar and threefrom the "judicial Officers" were proposed to be made by the State, after involving the High court, when Chandra Mohan, a member of the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and others filed a writ petition in the High court for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the government not to make the appointments pursuant to the proposal. Since the writ petition was dismissed and the matter was brought to this court in appeal, the canvas of dispute, on account of many points involved, was widely spread, but for our purposes it would suffice to say that this court ruled that the rules as such framed by the governor empowering him to recruit Judges from the "judicial Officers" source were unconstitutional and the recruitment of the "judicial Officers" was bad. It was emphasised by this court that the Indian Constitution had provided for an independent judiciary in the States and in order to put the independence of the subordinate judiciary beyond question, provision had been made in Article 50 of the Constitution in the Ch. of Directive Principles for the separation of the judiciary from the executive, and further in enacting Articles 233 to 237 in Part VI, Ch. VI of the Constitution, the appointment of District Judges in any State was envisaged to be made only from two sources i. e. (i) Service of the Union or of the State; and (ii) members of the Bar. This court went on to rule that the Service of the Union or of the State mentioned in the first category did not mean each and every service of the Union or of the State but judicial service of the Union or of the State. "judicial Service" as defined in Article 236 (b) meant a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of District Judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of District Judge.