TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint the recommended candidates as District Judges under Article 233(1) of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the State Government could unilaterally reject the High Court's panel without real, full and effective consultation and instead cancel the recruitment process and invite fresh applications.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint the recommended candidates as District Judges under Article 233(1) of the Constitution.
Analysis: Appointment of District Judges under Article 233(1) is an executive function exercised by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, after consultation with the High Court. A recommended candidate has no legal right to appointment merely because his name appears in the panel. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel appointment when the constitutional scheme leaves the final appointment decision within the consultative process prescribed by the Constitution.
Conclusion: The High Court could not lawfully direct appointment by mandamus, and that part of the judgment was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the State Government could unilaterally reject the High Court's panel without real, full and effective consultation and instead cancel the recruitment process and invite fresh applications.
Analysis: Consultation under Article 233(1) must be real and effective, requiring an exchange of views and disclosure of the difficulties faced by the State Government before a final decision is taken. If the Government finds difficulty in acting on the recommendation, it must place its objections before the High Court and elicit its opinion. The Government could not independently decide to cancel the panel and renotify the vacancies without first taking the High Court into confidence. The proper course was to communicate its views to the High Court and seek reconsideration, including any necessary application of the passing-over rule in the reservation roster.
Conclusion: The State Government's unilateral rejection of the panel and cancellation of the recruitment steps were quashed, and the matter had to go back into the constitutional consultative process.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part by invalidating the writ compelling appointments, while preserving the requirement of meaningful consultation between the State Government and the High Court before any final decision on the District Judge vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 233(1), the Governor's power to appoint District Judges is conditioned by real and effective consultation with the High Court, and mandamus cannot compel appointment contrary to the constitutionally prescribed consultative process.
TaxTMI 
