http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MANI SUBRAT JAIN ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/12/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1977 AIR  276            1976 SCR  (2) 361  1977 SCC  (1) 486  CITATOR INFO :  E&R        1978 SC 327  (11)  E&R        1987 SC 331  (19,28,33)  RF         1989 SC  49  (19)

ACT:             Constitution  of  India--Writ of mandamus, when  can  be         asked  for   Article 233, scope  of--Direct  recruitment  of         District Judges--Whether Governor bound to accept, recommen-         dation of High Court.

HEADNOTE:         The Haryana High Court invited applications and  interviewed         candidates  for filling up vacancies in the quota of  direct         recruits  from  the bar, in the  Haryana  Superior  Judicial         Service.   The names of the appellants were  recommended  to         the  State Government who rejected them and asked  the  High         Court  to invite application again. Accepting the  position,         the  High  Court issued the advertisements.  The  appellants         filed petitions against the order rejecting their names  and         asked for mandamus for appointment.  The same were dismissed         by  the High Court on the ground that the appellants had  no         locus standi.         Dismissing the appeals, the Court,             HELD:  (1) There must be a judicially enforceable  right         as well as a legally protected right before one suffering  a         legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said         to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by some         one who has  legal duty to do something or  to  abstain from         doing something. [362G-H, 363A-B]             State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. [1974]         1  S.C.R. 165; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan  Kumar  Haji         Bashir  Ahmed & Ors. [1976] 3 S.C.R. 58; Halsbury’s Laws  of         England 4th Ed. Vol. I, pargraph 122 and Ferris  Extra-ordi-         nary Legal Remedies, paragraph 198, applied.         (2) The initial appointment of District Judges under Article         233  is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the  Government         after consultation with the High  Court though the consulta-         tion  does not mean that the Governor must  accept  whatever         advice or recommendation is given by the High Court. Article         233  only requires that the Governor should obtain from  the         High  Court its views   on the merits and demerits  of  per-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

       sons, selected for promotion and direct recruitment.[363A-B.         F-G]             Chandra  Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.   [1967]         1 S.C.R.  77; Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court &         Ors.  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 666 and A. Panduranga Rao v. State  of         Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [1976] 1  S.C.R. 620. referred to.

JUDGMENT:             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1987.-         1988 of 1976.             (Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated the 25-3-1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  in         Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1228 & 1229 of 1975).             G.L.  Singh, in CA 1988/76 with Hardev Singh, B.   Datta         and N.S. Sodhi, for the appellants.             Niren  De, Attorney General with Devan Chetan Das,  Adv.         General,  Prem Malhotra and R.N. Sachthey,  for  respondents         Nos. 1 & 2.         Anand Swarup, and Mrs. S. Bhandare, for respondent No. 3.         362         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             RAY, C.J. These appeals are by special leave against the         judgment dated 25 March, 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High         Court dismissing the writ petitions.             The appellants in the writ petitions asked for a  manda-         mus directing Respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint the  appel-         lants  to  the  posts of Additional  District  and  Sessions         Judge.   The  appellants  also asked for a  mandamus  or  an         appropriate  writ quashing the orders of Respondents  No.  1         and  2 whereby the High Court was informed that the  Govern-         ment was not prepared to appoint the appellants to the  post         of Additional District and Sessions Judge.             Respondent  No. 1 is the State of  Haryana.   Respondent         No. 2 is the Chief Minister of Haryana. Respondent No. 3  is         the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.             The  High  Court dismissed the petitions on  the  ground         that  the appellants had no locus standi to file  the  peti-         tions. The reason given by the High Court is that the appel-         lants  were  not appointed and they had no right to  be  ap-         pointed.   They had also no right to know why they were  not         appointed.             The High Court by letter dated 19 February, 1972 invited         applications from eligible members of the Bar to fill up two         vacancies  in the quota of direct recruits from the  Bar  in         the   Haryana   Superior Judicial Service.  The  High  Court         called for interview 9 candidates on 18 October, 1972.             The  High  Court thereafter recommended to  the  Haryana         Government  the names of the appellants for  appointment  as         District/Additional District & Sessions Judges.         After 27 months the Government reacted the recommendation of         the  High  Court.   Thereupon  the  appellants  filed   writ         petitions challenging the order of rejection and  asked  for         mandamus  for appointment.             There is a letter dated 8 September, 1972 from the Chief         Secretary  to the Government of Haryana to the Registrar  of         the  High Court.  In that letter the Government took  excep-         tion to the inviting of applications from members of the Bar         without the  High  Court having first obtained the  approval         of  the Government for that purpose. The letter also  stated         that  in the past two occasions the High Court obtained  the         approval  of the State Government before  inviting  applica-         tion.             The  High Court rightly dismissed the petitions.  It  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       elementary though it is to be restated that no one can   ask         for   a   mandamus without a legal right.  There must  be  a         judicially enforceable right as well as a legally  protected         right  before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for  a         mandamus.  A person can be said to be aggrieved only when  a         person  is denied a legal right by some one who has a  legal         duty         363         to  do  something or to abstain from  doing  something  (See         Halsbury’s  Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. I,  paragraph  122;         State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.(1) Jasbhai         Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors.  (2)         and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198.             The initial appointment of District Judges under Article         233  is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the  Government         after consultation with the High Court.  The Governor is not         bound  to act  on  the advice of the High Court.   The  High         Court  recommends the names of persons for appointment.   If         the names are recommended by the High Court it is not  obli-         gatory on the Governor to accept the recommendation.             Counsel  for the appellants relied on the  decisions  of         this  Court  in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar   Pradesh  &         Ors.(3);  Chandramouleshwar  Prasad v. Patna  High  Court  &         Ors(4)  and A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra  Pradesh  &         ORS.(5) in SUppOrt of  tWO contentions.  First, the Governor         should  accept the recommendations made by the  High  Court.         Second, if the Governor will not accept the  recommendations         he  should give reasons for not accepting   the  recommenda-         tions.  None of the decisions supports the contentions.             In  these three cases the scope and content  of  Article         233   was examined.  This Court has held that the  Constitu-         tion contemplates consultation of the Governor with the High         Court inasmuch as the High Court is in a position to express         views  on the judicial work of persons who  are  recommended         for  appointment to the posts of District Judges.  The  High         Court knows the merits and demerits  of persons who will  be         promoted  from  the service to the  post.   The  High  Court         interviews persons who will be appointed by direct  recruit-         ment.  The High Court in  those  circumstances  will  select         candidates  for  promotion and direct recruitment  and  send         their names to the Government.             This  Court has also held that the consultation  of  the         Governor with the High Court does not mean that the Governor         must   aceept whatever advice or recommendation is given  by         the   High   Court. Article 233 requires that  the  Governor         should  obtain  from  the High Court its views on the merits         and  demerits of persons, selected for promotion and  direct         recruitment.             In  regard to persons who are appointed by promotion  or         direct  recruitment this Court has held that it is not  open         to the  Government to choose a candidate for appOintment  by         direct recruitment or by promotion unless and until his name         is recommended  by  the High Court.             In Panduranga Rao’s case (supra) there is an observation         that  the Government could tell the High Court  its  reasons         for not accepting           (1) [1974] 1 S.C.R. 165.          (2) [19761 3 S.C.R. 58.           (3) [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77.           (4) [19701 2 S.C.R. 666.           (5) [1976] 1 S.C.R. 620.         364         the  recommendations of the High Court in regard to  certain         persons.  The observation in Panduranga Rao’s  case  (supra)         was made in the facts and circumstances of that case and  in         particular the controversial correspondence.             In the present case the Government pointed out that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

       High  Court  had  not written to the  Government  about  the         proposed  appointments before issuing advertisements  there-         for.    In any event, after the Government  communicated  to         the High Court that the  recommendations were not   accepted         a  new  situation  developed. The Government asked the  High         Court to issue advertisements and to invite applications for         appointment  to  the posts.   The High Court  accepted  that         position  and  acted upon it.   The High  Court  issued  the         advertisements.             The attitude of the High Court has been peculiar.   When         the  High  Court decided to ask for fresh  applications  the         High  Court  accepted the position that the original  recom-         mendations  which had been made by the High Court  were  not         accepted  by  the State Government and yet  the  High  Court         supported before this Court the appellant’s case by pleading         for  the "candidature" of the appellants.   The  High  Court         should  not take a partisan view by supporting the  candida-         ture  of  any person.  We were a little surprised  that  the         High  Court supported the appellants.   This is  not  proper         particularly  when  the High Court dismissed the writ  peti-         tions of the appellants.             For  the  foregoing reasons the appeals  are  dismissed.         There will be no order as to costs.         M.R.                                         Appeals    dis-         missed.         365