1967 (2) TMI 107 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 confirmed after consultation with High Court

Farzand Versus Mohan Singh and Ors.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, finding that they were framed after proper ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951.2. Requirement of consultation with the High Court under Article 234 of the Constitution.3. Validity of rules framed under Article 309 instead of Article 234.4. Requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission.5. Interpretation of Article 234 regarding consultation for each appointment versus rule-making.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951:The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, on the basis that they were not framed in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the rules violated Article 234, which mandates consultation with the High Court.2. Requirement of Consultation with the High Court under Article 234:The petitioner contended that the consultation required by Article 234 means consultation with all the Judges of the High Court, and not just a committee or individual judges. The court, however, held that Article 234 does not specify that the consultation must be with all the judges. The court emphasized that the High Court's administrative function does not necessitate consultation with the entire bench of judges. The court also noted that practical difficulties would arise if consultation required all judges to be involved in every administrative decision.3. Validity of Rules Framed under Article 309 Instead of Article 234:The petitioner argued that the rules were invalid as they were framed under Article 309 instead of Article 234. The court held that the validity of the rules must be tested by whether the Governor had the power to make those rules. The court found that the Governor had the requisite power to frame rules under both Article 234 and Article 309, and the non-mention of Article 234 in the preamble did not invalidate the rules. The court cited precedents to support the principle that the exercise of power is valid if it can be sustained under any provision of the law.4. Requirement of Consultation with the Public Service Commission:The petitioner claimed that the Public Service Commission was not consulted prior to the framing of the rules. The court found that the Public Service Commission was indeed consulted, as evidenced by the correspondence between the State Government and the Commission. Thus, this point raised by the petitioner had no merit.5. Interpretation of Article 234 Regarding Consultation for Each Appointment Versus Rule-Making:The petitioner argued that Article 234 requires consultation with the High Court for each appointment to the judicial service, not just for the framing of rules. The court rejected this interpretation, stating that Article 234 pertains to the making of rules for recruitment and not individual appointments. The court referred to the legislative history and the intention behind Article 234, which was to ensure the independence of the judiciary by involving the High Court in the rule-making process.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, were valid and had been framed after the necessary consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. The court also clarified that the consultation required by Article 234 pertains to the framing of rules and not individual appointments. The petitioner's arguments were found to be without merit, and the petition was dismissed with costs.