BIMLA LAKHERA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to appoint her to the post of Additional district & Sessions Judge in the Rajasthan High Court Judicial Service (For short hereinafter referred to as "rhjs" ).

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate with the Rajasthan Bar Council. In the year 1992, the Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to 22 posts in RHJS. Out of these 22 posts, 5 posts were reserved for women candidates. Some posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe and other backward class candidates. The petitioner applied in the capacity of a Scheduled Caste candidate. A written test for screening of the candidates was held on 06. 8. 2000. The petitioner qualified the said test. She also appeared for interview thereafter.

(3.) THE question remains as to whether the recommendation of the High Court made in favour of the petitioner on 3. 7. 2001 could be taken as appointment and, therefore, could be saved as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganga Ram Moolchandani's case (supra ). In this connection, it is to be noted that Article 233 of the constitution of India provides that appointment in the Higher Judicial Service in the State has as to be made by the Governor of the State. THErefore in the State has to be made by the Governor of the State. THErefore, it is the governor alone who is the appointing authority and a High Court recommendation cannot be said to be an appointment. Unless and until the order of appointment in issued by the Governor, person cannot be said to have been appointed as an Additional District & Sessions Judge. Further, difference between appointment and selection cannot be overlooked. Selection is the process by which a person is selected for appointment to a post, however, appointment is the formal order which alone confers right to the post. So, the recommendation of the High Court in favour of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the RHJS Cadre was at best a final step in the selection process. THE High Court only makes recommendations to the Governor to make appointments. THEreafter, it is for the Governor of the State to issue the formal appointment order. In the absence of appointment order by the Governor no appointment can be said to have been made. In the present case, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had been appointed to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge merely because the High Court had made a recommendation for her appointment.