Case: A. Panduranga Rao Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors

of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment."As pointed out at page 89 by this Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors ([1967] 1 S.C.R. 77.)"There are two sources of recruitment, namely, (1) service of the Union or of the State, and (ii) members of the Bar. The said judges from the first source are appointed in consultation with the High Court and those from the second source are appointed on the recommendation of the High Court."7. A candidate for direct recruitment from the Bar does not become eligible for appointment without the recommendation of the High Court. He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Art. 233. The High Court in the judgment under appeal felt some difficulty in appreciating the meaning of the word "recommend". But the literal meaning given in the Concise oxford Dictionary is quite simple and apposite. It means "suggest as fit for employment." In case of appointment from the Bar it is not open to the Government to choose a candidate for appointment until and unless his name is recommended by the High Court.8. The recommendation of the High Court for filling up the six vacancies was contained in its letter dated 13-7-1973. Government was not bound to accept all the recommendations but could tell the High Court its reasons for not accepting the High Courts recommendations in regard to certain persons. If the High Court agreed with the reasons in case of a particular person the recommendation in his case stood with drawn and there was no question of appointing him. Even if the High Court did not agree the final authority was the Government in the matter of appointment and for good reasons it could reject the High Courts recommendations. In either event it could ask the High Court to make mo re recommendations in place of those who have been rejected. But surely it was wrong and incompetent for the Government to write a letter like the one dated 26-7-1973 inviting the High Courts attention to Instruction 12(5) of the Secretariat instructions and on the basis of that to ask it to send the list of persons whom the High Court considered to have reasonable claims to the appointment. On the basis of the furore created by two Bar Associations of Hyderabad and the High Courts letter dated 26-7-1973 written in reply to the Governments letter dated 24-7-1973 no persons candidature recommended by the High Court had been rejected when the letter dated 26-7-1973 was written by the Government. Even after rejection the Government could not ask the High Court to send the list of all persons whom the High Court considered to have reasonable claim to the appointment We feel distressed to find that instead of pointing out the correct position of law to the Government and itself acting according to it, a letter hike the one dated 1-8-1973 was sent by the High Court in reply to the Governments letter dated 26-7-1973. It is not clear from this letter whether it was written under the direction of the Chief Justice alone or under the directions of Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court as in the case of the letter dated 13-7-1973. But surely it was very much wrong on the part of the High Court to forward the entire list of the candidates interviewed with the marks obtained by them and adding at the same time that the High Court had no further remarks to offer. We could not understand the reason for writing such a letter by the High Court. But if we may hazard a surmise it seems to have been written in utter disgust at the Governments unreasonable attitude displayed in its letter dated 26-7-1973. By no means could it be, nor was it, a recommendation by the High Court of all there 263 candidates interviewed, that all of them had a reasonable claim, or in other words, were fit to be appointed District Judges. We must express our displeasure at and disapproval of all that happened between the Government and the High Court in the former writing the letter dated 26-7-1973 and the letter sending the reply dated 1-8-1973.Then comes the letter dated 30-11-1973. After tracing the history of the recommendation made by the High Court in its letter dated l 3-7-1973 and "in the light of the further in formation about these candidates as required from High Court", Government decided to select the six candidates mentioned therein including respondents 3 to 6 as if they were from "the list recommended by the High Court . It was further stated in this letter "Reasons for not selecting candidates placed by the High Court higher than those now selected are given in the annexure enclosed to this D.o. letter." The High Court, to be more accurate, the Chief Justice to whom the letter dated 30-11-1973 was addressed seems to have not resented or protested against the selection so made by the Government in clear violation of Article 233 of the Constitution. We find it intriguing that the letter written by the Registrar o f the High Court on 1-8-1973 was treated as a recommendation of all the 263 candidates as having been found fit for appointment as District Judges. By no means could it be so. It was not so. And yet the High Court or the Chief Justice did not object to the appointment of respondents 3 to 6 as District Judges. They were not eligible to be so appointed as their names had never been recommended.9.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the view which we take as to the violation of Article 233 in this case, we would not like, nor is it necessary to do so, to examine the claim of the appellant for appointment in one of the sixrecommendation of the High Court for filling up the six vacancies was contained in its letter dated 13-7-1973. Government was not bound to accept all the recommendations but could tell the High Court its reasons for not accepting the High Courts recommendations in regard to certain persons. If the High Court agreed with the reasons in case of a particular person the recommendation in his case stood with drawn and there was no question of appointing him. Even if the High Court did not agree the final authority was the Government in the matter of appointment and for good reasons it could reject the High Courts recommendations. In either event it could ask the High Court to make mo re recommendations in place of those who have been rejected. But surely it was wrong and incompetent for the Government to write a letter like the one dated 26-7-1973 inviting the High Courts attention to Instruction 12(5) of the Secretariat instructions and on the basis of that to ask it to send the list of persons whom the High Court considered to have reasonable claims to the appointment. On the basis of the furore created by two Bar Associations of Hyderabad and the High Courts letter dated 26-7-1973 written in reply to the Governments letter dated 24-7-1973 no persons candidature recommended by the High Court had been rejected when the letter dated 26-7-1973 was written by the Government. Even after rejection the Government could not ask the High Court to send the list of all persons whom the High Court considered to have reasonable claim to the appointment We feel distressed to find that instead of pointing out the correct position of law to the Government and itself acting according to it, a letter hike the one dated 1-8-1973 was sent by the High Court in reply to the Governments letter dated 26-7-1973. It is not clear from this letter whether it was written under the direction of the Chief Justice alone or under the directions of Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court as in the case of the letter dated 13-7-1973. But surely it was very much wrong on the part of the High Court to forward the entire list of the candidates interviewed with the marks obtained by them and adding at the same time that the High Court had no further remarks to offer. We could not understand the reason for writing such a letter by the High Court. But if we may hazard a surmise it seems to have been written in utter disgust at the Governments unreasonable attitude displayed in its letter dated 26-7-1973. By no means could it be, nor was it, a recommendation by the High Court of all there 263 candidates interviewed, that all of them had a reasonable claim, or in other words, were fit to be appointed District Judges. We must express our displeasure at and disapproval of all that happened between the Government and the High Court in the former writing the letter dated 26-7-1973 and the letter sending the reply dated 1-8-1973.Then comes the letter dated 30-11-1973. After tracing the history of the recommendation made by the High Court in its letter dated l 3-7-1973 and "in the light of the further in formation about these candidates as required from High Court", Government decided to select the six candidates mentioned therein including respondents 3 to 6 as if they were from "the list recommended by the High Court . It was further stated in this letter "Reasons for not selecting candidates placed by the High Court higher than those now selected are given in the annexure enclosed to this D.o. letter." The High Court, to be more accurate, the Chief Justice to whom the letter dated 30-11-1973 was addressed seems to have not resented or protested against the selection so made by the Government in clear violation of Article 233 of the Constitution. We find it intriguing that the letter written by the Registrar o f the High Court on 1-8-1973 was treated as a recommendation of all the 263 candidates as having been found fit for appointment as District Judges. By no means could it be so. It was not so. And yet the High Court or the Chief Justice did not object to the appointment of respondents 3 to 6 as District Judges. They were not eligible to be so appointed as their names had never been recommended.A candidate for direct recruitment from the Bar does not become eligible for appointment without the recommendation of the High Court. He becomes eligible only on such recommendation under clause (2) of Art. 233. The High Court in the judgment under appeal felt some difficulty in appreciating the meaning of the word "recommend". But the literal meaning given in the Concise oxford Dictionary is quite simple and apposite. It means "suggest as fit for employment." In case of appointment from the Bar it is not open to the Government to choose a candidate for appointment until and unless his name is recommended by the High Court.