Mandamus cannot compel recruitment rule changes; meaningful consultation is required before any final amendment recommendation.

A writ of mandamus cannot compel the State to amend recruitment rules in a particular form, because rule-making under the relevant constitutional provision is legislative in character. The direction issued by the High Court was therefore impermissible. The consultative process also required meaningful consideration of the Commission's objections, including issues of classification, seniority, eligibility, and comparative practice. As those objections had not been fully examined, the proposed reservation in judicial service needed reconsideration on the High Court's administrative side before any final recommendation. The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was dismissed, and the High Court was left free to reconsider the proposal administratively.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct the State Government to amend the recruitment rules in the manner proposed by the High Court; (ii) whether the High Court had given adequate consideration to the objections and suggestions raised in the consultative process before pressing for amendment of the rules.

Issue (i): whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct the State Government to amend the recruitment rules in the manner proposed by the High Court

Analysis: The power to frame recruitment rules under Section 110 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir is legislative in character and is exercisable by the Governor in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. A court cannot compel the legislature or an authority exercising subordinate legislative power to enact rules in a particular form. The direction issued by the High Court, though framed as a command to consider the proposal, effectively required the State to incorporate the proposed amendments.

Conclusion: The direction was impermissible and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court had given adequate consideration to the objections and suggestions raised in the consultative process before pressing for amendment of the rules

Analysis: Effective consultation requires a real exchange of viewpoints and due consideration of the material placed by the consulting authority. The objections raised by the Commission, including questions about classification of posts, seniority, eligibility, and comparative practice, were not fully examined. Because the proposed reservation in judicial service involved matters affecting recruitment structure and judicial administration, a deeper and more detailed examination was necessary before a final recommendation could properly be made.

Conclusion: The matter required reconsideration by the High Court on its administrative side after fuller examination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was dismissed, and the High Court was left free to reconsider the proposed amendments administratively in the light of the observations made.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot issue mandamus to compel the making of subordinate legislation in a particular form, and consultative constitutional procedures must be followed through effective and meaningful consideration before any final recommendation is pressed.

---