Meaningful consultation under Article 233 and authorised service rules govern judicial appointments and seniority; temporary appointment held invalid.

Article 233 requires real and meaningful consultation with the High Court before appointing a District Judge, and consultation is incomplete unless both authorities have fully considered each other's views; on that basis, the temporary appointment discussed here was invalid. The High Court's gradation list also lacked legal sanction because the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules did not authorise it to ermine seniority inter se of officers. Seniority of promoted officers was to be settled under the service rules when substantive appointments arose, not by an unauthorised civil list or ad hoc arrangement. The material did not establish mala fides, and the officiating seniority position had no final operative effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Government's temporary appointment of a District and Sessions Judge was valid for want of effective consultation with the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the gradation list prepared by the High Court had legal sanction and could determine seniority inter se of the officers concerned.

Issue (i): whether the Government's temporary appointment of a District and Sessions Judge was valid for want of effective consultation with the High Court under Article 233 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 233 requires real and meaningful consultation between the Governor and the High Court before appointment of a District Judge. Consultation is not complete unless the respective views of both authorities are made known and examined. Where the High Court had already taken one view and the Government proceeded on a different footing without placing its counter-view before the High Court or obtaining the High Court's views on the person ultimately appointed, the constitutional requirement is not satisfied.

Conclusion: The temporary appointment was not made in compliance with Article 233 and was invalid.

Issue (ii): whether the gradation list prepared by the High Court had legal sanction and could determine seniority inter se of the officers concerned.

Analysis: The Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules did not authorise the High Court to prepare or act upon such a gradation list. Seniority inter se of promoted officers was to be determined in accordance with the service rules when substantive appointments arose, not by an unauthorised civil list or ad hoc gradation arrangement. The material also did not establish mala fides, and the controversy over seniority had no final operative effect at the officiating stage.

Conclusion: The gradation list had no legal sanction, and seniority could be determined only in accordance with the service rules when the occasion arose.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned temporary appointment was held invalid, while the High Court's transfer of the officer and the claimed seniority position were not upset on the footing advanced.

---