Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar, challenged the Patna High Court's order transferring him from Arrah to Singhbhum and a Government notification appointing him as officiating District Judge at Arrah. The dispute arose from the impending retirement of the District Judge at Arrah in September 1968. The High Court directed respondent No. 3, a junior officer, to officiate in the vacancy, considering him senior to the petitioner. The petitioner, feeling superseded, memorialized the State Government, which issued a notification on 17 October 1968 appointing him as officiating District Judge. The High Court, deeming the notification improper, transferred the petitioner on 25 October 1968. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32, arguing that the gradation list maintained by the High Court was illegal and that his transfer was penal and discriminatory. The Court examined the nature of consultation required under Article 233 of the Constitution for appointment of District Judges. It held that the consultation between the Governor and the High Court must be effective, involving a mutual exchange of views and deliberation. The Government's notification was issued without ascertaining the High Court's views on the petitioner's claim, thus violating Article 233. Consequently, the notification was invalid. The Court further held that the gradation list prepared by the High Court had no legal basis and did not confer any right to seniority. As the Government notification was invalid, the High Court's transfer order was within its competence and not liable to be quashed. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority and Gradation List - Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules - Position in the Civil List or gradation list maintained by the High Court does not confer title or determine seniority; it merely shows length of service and posting; preparation of such list has no legal sanction and cannot be basis for claiming seniority over others; seniority inter se of officers holding officiating posts to be determined only upon confirmation (Page 675 G) B) Constitutional Law - Appointment of District Judges - Article 233, Constitution of India - Consultation between Governor and High Court is mandatory and must be effective; consultation implies deliberation and exchange of views; if one party has a counter-proposal not communicated to the other, direction giving effect to such counter-proposal without discussion is not consultation; Government notification issued without ascertaining High Court's views on petitioner's claim held invalid (Pages 674 F-675 B)
Issue of Consideration
Validity of High Court's order transferring the petitioner and validity of Government notification appointing petitioner as officiating District Judge.
Final Decision
The Court held that the Government notification dated 17 October 1968 was invalid as it was issued without effective consultation with the High Court under Article 233. The High Court's transfer order was valid as the notification did not bind it. The petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Appointment of District Judges under Article 233 requires effective consultation between Governor and High Court
- consultation is not an empty formality and requires exchange of views
- gradation list prepared by High Court has no legal basis and does not determine seniority.
