Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=3527
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 16:19:10
Document Index: 126813042

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.\t233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 309', 'Art. 233', 'Art.\t23', 'Art.\t233', 'Art. 233', 'Art.\n233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 235', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 235', 'Art. 236', 'Art.\t233', 'Art. 234', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 309', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art.\n236', 'Art. 234', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 234', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 234', 'Art.\t233', 'Art.\t234', 'Art. 236', 'Art.\t233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233', 'Art. 233']

PREM NATH & ORS versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
1967 AIR 1599
PREM NATH & ORS V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [1967] RD-SC 63 (15 March 1967)
15/03/1967 SHELAT, J.M.
CITATION: 1967 AIR 1599
Constitution of India Art.	233-Selection	Commissioner consisting of Chief Justice and two other Judges only-List of eligible candidates prepared by the Committee transmitted by the High Court-If proper consultation.
Art. 233A-Appointments	of Civil and	Additional Sessions Judge to the Rajasthan Higher judicial Service if validated.
Art. 236-Civil Judge appointed as Additional Sessions Judge under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1955-If "District Judge" within the definition of the Article.
The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1955, provided that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service had to be made by the Governor from out of the	lists	of eligible candidates sent up by the High Court but prepared by a Selection Committee of the High Court	consisting of	the Chief Justice, the Administrative Judge and another Judge of the High Court nominated by	the Chief Justice.	When recruitments to the posts of Civil and Additional Sessions Judge were made in accordance with this procedure they	were challenged on the ground that the Rules contravened Art. 233 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the validity of the Rules and the appointments made thereunder. In	this Court it was contended that (i) the Rules were ultra vires Art. 233, and	(ii) the post of a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge	is not included in the definition of a "District Judge" in	Article 236 and therefore	the appointments were not validated by Article 233A introduced by the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966.
Held : The Rules contravened Article 233 and therefore	the appointments were illegal; but the	appointments	were validated by Article 233A.
(i) Consultation as provided in Art. 233 is	consultation with the High Court -and not with any other authority	such as the Selection Committee appointed under the Rules.	The Committee, though composed of Judges of the High Court, is not the High Court. The only function entrusted to the High Court under the Rules is to transmit the lists prepared by the Committee and there is nothing in the Rules empowering the High Court, before submitting the lists to	vary those lists if the High Court were to disagree with the Committee.
[190 A-C] Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77, followed (ii) When a Civil Judge is appointed as an Additional Sessions Judge, which is precisely what has happened in	the instant case, such an appointment is made in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Civil Judge exercises the powers of an additional Sessions Judge not because he is a Civil Judge but because he is appointed as an Additional Sessions Judge. The	two posts,	therefore, cannot be said to	have been clubbed together. So, when a person appointed as a Civil Judge is also intended to work as an Additional Sessions Judge an 187 appointment has to be made under s. 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as an Additional Sessions Judge.	Such an appointment	has to be considered as an	appointment falling under the definition of "District Judge" within	the meaning	of Art. 236.	Therefore Article 233 and	the Rajasthan higher Judicial Service Rules 1955 apply to such a post and not Article 234 or the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955. [195 E-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1966.
Appeal	from the judgment and order dated November 27,	1964 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Writ Petition No.	803 of 1964.
M. B. L. Bhargava and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
S. V.	Gupte, Solicitor-General, G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan and K. Baldev Mehta,	for respontents Nos. 1-5.
Sarjoo	Prasad, S. N. Prasad, and 0. C. Mathur, for respon- dents Nos. 6 and 7 and Interveners Nos.	1 and 2.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for intervener No. 3.
Santi Bhushan, Addl. Advocate-General, State of U.P. and 0. P. Rana, for intervener No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, raises two questions (1) whether the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules.
1955 are ultra vires Art. 233 and, therefore, the selections made by the Selection Committee appointed thereunder	and appointments made on	the basis of such selections	are invalid, and (2) if	so, whether the appointments	are validated by the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment)	Act, 1966 which introduces Art. 233A in the Constitution.
On May 9, 1955, the Rajpramukh of the then (Part B) State of Rajasthan, in	exercise of the powers conferred by	the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, promulgated	the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1955.	In pursuance of the said Rules, the High Court of Rajasthan published a notice	dated November 20, 1963, inviting applications	for direct	recruitment to four posts of Civil and Additional Sessions Judge. A number of applications were received by the High Court and after scrutiny thereof and interviews granted	to the applicants,	the Selection	Committee, appointed under the said Rules and consisting of the Chief Justice. the Administrative Judge and another Judge of	the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice, selected four candidates. Besides these four posts, there were fourteen posts to be filled up from amongst the members of	the Rajasthan Judicial Service by 188 promotion. The said Committee selected eligible candidates from amongst those members and prepared another list .	The High Court submitted the two lists prepared by the Committee to the Governor for appointments.
The appellants	who are members of the	Rajasthan Judicial Service filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the validity of the selection done, the lists prepared by the Selection Committee and the	appointments made on the basis of those lists on the (,round that	they were done in contravention of Art. 233. The	High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the said Rules were valid,	and, therefore, the	proceedings of	the	said Committee, the	lists prepared by it and submitted to	the Governor by the High Court and the appointments made	were all valid. Hence this appeal.
Rule 1(2) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules provides that the said Rules shall apply to the members of the Service consisting of District and Sessions Judges	and Civil and Additional Sessions Judges. Rule 6 provides	that the strength of the Service and of each class of posts therein	shall	be determined by the Governor from time to time in consultation with the High Court and the permanent strength of the Service and of each class of posts therein shall be as specified in Schedule 1. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 empowers the Governor, from time to time and in consultation with the High Court, to leave unfilled or hold in abeyance any post in the Service or create such additional temporary or permanent posts in the Service as may be found necessary.
Schedule I provides the strength of District and Sessions Judges	at 18,	i.e.,	15 judgeships,	one post of Legal Remembrance, one post of Registrar of the High	Court,	and one post of Joint Legal Remembrancer and that of the Civil and Additional	District Judges at 20. Rule	7 provides sources	of recruitment, viz., by promotion from among	the members	of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and by direct recruitment in	consultation with the High	Court.	The persons	eligible for direct recruitment are Advocates or Pleaders of more than seven years' standing. Rule 10 reads as under :- (1) Subject to	the provisions of these rules, the number of persons to be recruited at each	recruitment from each	of the	two sources specified in rule 7 and	the -period (not exceeding three years) for	which	such recruitment is to be made shall be determined by the Governor.
Provided that the number of persons appointed to the Service by direct recruitment shall at no time	exceed on---fourth of	the total strength	of the Service and the number of persons so appointed during any one period 189 of recruitment shall not exceed one-fourth of the total number of vacancies occurring during that period".
Rule 13 provides that after a decision is taken under	Rule 10 as of the number of persons to be recruited by promotion, selection hall be made from among the eligible	members of the Rajasthan	judicial Service by a	Selection Committee consisting of the Chief justice, the Administrative Judge and a	Judge of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice. It also provides that the Committee shall select from among the eligible officers those whom they consider suitable for appointment to the Service. A list of	the officers selected shall then be made in the order of their inter se seniority in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. As regards	direct recruitment,	Rule	17 provides	that applications shall be invited by the High Court. Rule 21 provides that the Selection Committee shall scrutinise	such applications and require such of the eligible candidates as seem best qualified for appointment to the Service under these Rules to appear before the Committee for interview.
Under Rule 22 the Selection Committee have to prepare a list of candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the Service. Under Rule 23 the High Court has to submit to the Governor two copies each of the two lists of candidates considered suitable for appointment to the Service from	the two sources of recruitment as prepared in accordance	with Rules 13 and 22. Rule 24 provides that all appointments to posts in the Service shall be made by the Governor on	the occurrence of	substantive vacancies by taking candidates from the lists prepared under Rule 13 and Rule 22 in	the order in which they stand in the respective	lists.	The first three vacancies shall be filled from the list prepared under Rule 13 and the fourth vacancy shall be	filled	from the list prepared under Rule 22 and so on.
It is clear from Rule 13(2) that the selection from amongst the eligible officers for appointment to the Higher Service is made by the Selection Committee and not by the High Court is a whole though the list prepared	thereunder by	the Committee is forwarded by the High Court to the Governor.
There is no provision in Rule 13 or	in any	other	Rule empowering the High Court to modify the lists	prepared by the Committee either by substituting others in the lists whom the High Court	considers more suitable or	by withdrawing or	deleting any one of those selected by	the Committee and	named in the	lists.	So far is direct recruitment is concerned, under Rule 21 it is the Committee which scrutinise the	applications and it is again	the Committee which decide whom to reject and whom to call	for interview. The High	Court has nothing to do with	the scrutiny of applications. It is again the Selection Committee which. interview the candidates	considered eligible for appointment and not the High Court. It is also the 190 Selection Committee which prepare the	lists	of eligible candidate selected by them. The only function entrusted to the High Court under the Rules is, therefore,	to transmit the two lists prepare 'by the Committee under Rules 13	and
22. As aforesaid, there is no provision in the Rules empowering the High Court before submitting the lists to the Governor to vary those lists even if the High Court were to disagree with	the selections made	by the	Committee.
Obviously, the	Committee is not the High Court The	High Court thus is	only a transmitting authority. The	con- sultation as provided in Article 233 is consultation with th High Court and not with any other authority such as	the Selection Committee appointed under the Rules.	The Rules, therefore, and clearly inconsistent	with the mandate provided for in Art.	23 and are,	therefore, invalid.
Consequently, the selections made by	the Committee,	the lists prepared	by them and appointments made thereunder would be invalid.
Recently, the	U.P. Higher Judicial	Service	Rules	for recruitment of District Judges, which were similar, if	not almost identical, with the Rules in this appeal, came up for consideration by this Court in Chandra Mohan V. State of Uttar Pradesh(1). After an analysis of the said Rules, this Court held that the said Rules were not in consonance	with and contravened Art.	233 and further held that	the appointments made thereunder	were illegal.	The Court observed :- "The Constitutional mandate of Art. 233 is clear.	The exercise	of the	power	of appointment by the Governor is conditioned by his consultation with the High Court, that is to say, he can only appoint a person to	the post of District Judge in consultation	with the High Court. The object of consultation is apparent.	The High Court is expected to	know better than the Governor in regard to	the suitability or otherwise of a	person,	be- longing either to the Judicial Service or to the Bar, to be appointed as a District Judge.
This mandate can be disobeyed by the Governor in two ways; directly, by not consulting	the High Court at all, and	indirectly by	con- sulting the High Court and also other persons.
That this constitutional mandate has both a negative	and positive significance is	made clear by the other provisions of	the Constitution. See Articles 124(2) and 217(2) and 222.	These provisions indicate that the duty to	consult is so integrated with	the exercise	of the power that the power can be exercised only in consultation with the person or persons designated therein".
191 The, Court also observed that :
"the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules	were constitutionally	void	as they clearly contravened the constitutional mandate of Art.
233(1) and (2). Under the	Rules	the consultation of	the High Court is an empty formality. The Governor prescribes	the qualifications,	the Selection	Committee appointed	by him selects the candidates and the High Court has to recommend from the lists prepared by the Committee. This is a travesty of the Constitutional provision.	The Governor in effect and substance does neither consult the High Court nor	act on its	re- commendations".
It is	obvious	that under the	Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service	Rules	the entire work of	scrutinising	the applications, interviewing the applicants, selection of eligible candidates from both the sources and preparation of the two lists is done by the Selection Committee and not by the High Court.	The only function entrusted under the Rules to the High Court is that of transmitting to the Governor the two lists	prepared by the Committee.	The Rules, therefore, do not provide for consultation of the High Court and, therefore, contravene Art. 233 which envisages	con- sultation with the High Court and not with any	other body such as the Selection Committee which cannot substitute	the High Court even though the members thereof happen to be three Judges of the High Court. The	learned Solicitor- General who appeared for the State frankly conceded that it was not possible for him to distinguish these Rules from the U.P. Higher Judicial	Service Rules and, therefore,	the decision in Chandra Mohan's case(1) would apply to	the present	Rules.	Consequently,	the said Rules cannot be sustained and have to be declared invalid. The	proceedings taken by the Selection Committee and	following them	the action taken must also be held to be invalid.
The next question is : whether appointments made by	the Governor from amongst those in the said lists are validated by the Constitution	(Twentieth Amendment)	Act, 1966.
Article	233A introduced by the said Act,	inter alia, provides.
"Notwithstanding	any judgment,	decree	or order of any court (a)(i) no appointment of any person already in the judicial service of a State or of any person who has been for	not less than seven	years	an Advocate or a Pleader, to be a District Judge in that State, and (ii) no posting, promotion or transfer of any such person as a District Judge, made at any time	before	the commencement of	the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, (1) [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77.
192 1966, otherwise than in accordance with	the provisions of Art. 233 or Art. 235 shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to	have become illegal or void by reason only of	the fact that such appointment, posting, promotion or transfer was not made in accordance	with the said provisions".
The amendment thus validates the appointment, posting or pro motion of a person as a District Judge if such	appointment, by reason of its not being in accordance with Art. 233 or Art. 235. would have been illegal or void. The question raised	by counsel is whether appointment to the post of a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge can be said to be one of a District Judge.
Article 236(a) defines a 'District Judge' as including Judge of a City Civil Court, Additional District Judge, Joint District Judge, Assistant District Judge, Chief Judge of a Small Cause Court, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate Sessions	Judge,	Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge. A Civil	and Additional Sessions Judge does not apparently find place in the different categories of judicial officers	included in this definition. Mr. Bhargava for the	appellants, therefore, argued that Art. 236, while defining a District Judge,	does not include a Civil and	Additional Sessions Judge; therefore, a person appointed as a Civil and Sessions Judge is not a District Judge and consequently Art.	233A does not validate the appointment of a person to the post of a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge if that	appointment was invalid. In order to make good his submission,	lie relied	on tile Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, section	6 of which provides for four categories of Civil Courts,	viz., (1) the Court of the District Judge, (2)	the Court of the Additional District Judge (3) the Court of	the Civil Judge and (4) the Court of th e Munsif. Section 13 of the Ordinance provides that appointments of persons to be Civil Judges and Munsifs shall be made by the Rajpramukh in accordance with the Rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the Rajasthan Public	Service Commission and the High Court. Section 19 provides that the Court of a Civil Judge shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature and the Court of a Munsif shall have	jurisdiction to hear	and determine all	original suits and proceedings	of a civil nature	of which the value does not exceed five thousand rupees.	Sections 1 6 and 1 7 provide for the place of sitting	and seals of 'the Courts. On May 9, 1955.	the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules in exercise of powers under Art. 234 read with Art. 238 and the proviso to Art. 309.	Rule 4 defines a 'member	of the service' is meaning a person appointed in a substantive capacity to a post in the cadre of the 193 Service under the provisions of these Rules or of any Rules or orders superseded by Rule 2. Clause (f) of that	Rule defines 'service' as meaning the Rajasthan Judicial Service.
Rule 6 lays down the strength of the Service and provides that such strength of the Service and of each class of posts therein shall be determined by the Rajpramukh from time to time in consultation with the High Court. Sub-rule	(2) provides that the permanent strength of the Service and of each class of	posts	therein shall be as specified in Schedule 1. According to that Schedule, the number of posts of Civil Judges was determined at 30 and that of the Munsifs at 80.	Mr. Bhargava's contention was that neither under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules nor under	the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, there is any provision for appointment as an Additional Sessions Judge of a person	who holds the post of a Civil Judge, that when respondents 6 and 7 were appointed they were appointed as Civil	Judges	with additional powers of an Additional Sessions Judge, that, therefore, as	Civil Judges they would be amenable to	the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 and	not to	the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules and	consequently Art. 233A would not apply to their appointments. He	also contended that before Art. 233A can apply, the	appointment must be to the post of a District Judge and that it is	not so as the post of a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge is not included in the detinition of a 'District Judge' in Art.
236. Mr. Garg appearing for the interveners argued that the appointments as Civil and Additional Sessions	Judges	club together the post of a Civil Judge and that of an Additional Sessions Judge, that though these, posts are so clubbed to other,	such appointments would be governed by Art. 234	and not by Art. 233 and 'therefore Art. 233A would neither apply nor validate such appointments.	Such appointments according to bull, would have to be made in accordance with the	pro- visions of Art. 234. He also sought to argue that since the Rajasthan Higher Judicial	Service	Rules	were	not distinguishable	from those of Uttar Pradesh, the Rules are invalid, that Art. 233A does not validate such invalid Rules and that as the said appointments have been	made under invalid Rules, they were not cured by Art. 233A. We may ,it this,	stage	make it clear that	the question	of constitutional validity of Art. 233A has not been raised in this appeal. The appointments are challenged	as invalid, because	they were made in contravention of Art. 233.	The vires of Art. 233A not having been challenged we disallowed Mr. Garg appearing, for the interveners to go into	that question in this appeal and we refrain, therefore,	from deciding that question.
Mr. then referred to us tile Bengal . Agra and Assam Civil Courts	Act, 1887, section 3 of which provides for the	same four classes of Civil Courts as is done in section 6 of	the Rajasthan Ordinance and contended, as did Mr. Bhargava, that the appoint- 194 ment of a person as a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge is substantially the appointment of such a person as a Civil Judge upon whom additional powers of an Additional Sessions Judge	are conferred. Therefore, said he, such	an appointment cannot be	said to be an appointment of a District Judge within the meaning of Art. 236.	The learned Solicitor-General, on	the other hand, argued that	the appointment of a person as a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge would not mean that he is only a Civil Judge or	that he is	not an Additional Sessions Judge included in	the definition of a 'District Judge' by Art. 236. Such a Civil Judge when appointed also as an Additional Sessions Judge would have all the powers of a Sessions Judge and would possess jurisdiction in a Sessions Court of	a Sessions division and all the _jurisdiction and powers which an Additional Sessions Judge would have under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Deputy Advocate-General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh as an intervener supported the	Solicitor-General and added that Judicial Service	under Art. 236 falls into two parts: (1) a Service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the	post of a District	Judge and (2) other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of a District Judge. He relied on	the words "appointments of persons to be District Judges"	used in Art. 233. According to him, these two Articles apply to persons	who are appointed in the first instance to Civil Judicial posts inferior to the post of a District Judge	but who are intended to fill the post of a District Judge it some time in the future and, therefore, such persons	also are District Judges and to whom Arts. 233 and	233A would apply.	It is not necessary in the present case to go	into the question of interpretation and scope of Arts. 233	and 236 as the question raised by Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Garg	can well be resolved by	a consideration of some of	the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section	6 of the Code provides for five classes of courts apart from the High Court, viz., (1) Courts of Sessions, (2) Presidency Magistrates, (3) Magistrates of the first class, (4) Magistrates of the second class, and (5) Magistrates of the third class. Section 7 provides	that every State, excluding the Presidency Towns, shall be a sessions division or shall consist of sessions divisions; and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts. Section 9 provides that the State Government shall establish a Court of	Session for every sessions division, and appoint a Judge of such Court. Sub- section (3) of s. 9 empowers the State Government to appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one or more such Courts. Section 36 lays down	that District	Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Magistrates of the first, second and	the third class shall have powers thereinafter respectively con- ferred upon them and specified in the third Schedule. Such 195 powers	are called 'ordinary powers, Section 37 authorises the State Government or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, to invest any Sub-Divisional	Magistrate or	any Magistrate of the first, second or third class with what are called	'additional powers'. Under section 39 the State Government can confer such additional powers on persons by name or by virtue of their office or on classes of officials generally by their official titles. It is manifest	that sections 36 to 39 cannot apply to the case of a Civil Judge appointed also as an Additional Sessions Judge, for these sections contemplate vesting	of additional	powers	on District Magistrates,	Sub-Divisional Magistrates	and Magistrates of the	first,	second and third class.
Therefore, the	power	to appoint a	Civil Judge as an Additional Sessions Judge is to be found not in sections 36 to 39 but in section 9 which as aforesaid empowers the State Government to	appoint	Additional or	Assistant Sessions Judges.	That is precisely what appears to have been done in Rajasthan. By	a notification dated	June 2, 1950	the Rajasthan Government appointed with effect from July 1, 1950, Civil Judges therein mentioned by virtue of their office	to be	Additional Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in courts of session mentioned in column 2 thereof. Therefore, when a Civil- Judge is also appointed as an	Additional Sessions Judge or	when a person is appointed both as a Civil Judge and also as an Additional Sessions Judge such appointment as an	Additional Sessions Judge is made in exercise of power under s. 9 of the Code.
When such a Civil Judge exercises the power of an Additional Sessions Judge, he does so not because he is a Civil Judge but because of his being appointed as an Additional Sessions Judge under S. 9 of the Code.	The two posts, therefore, cannot	be said to have been clubbed to-ether. Factually what happens is that a person who is or who is appointed a Civil Judge is also appointed an Additional Sessions Judge.
It makes no difference whether he is first appointed as a Civil Judge and then as an Additional	Sessions Judge or whether he is	appointed both as a Civil Judge and an Additional Sessions Judge at the same time. When such an appointment is made, the appointee exercises both the powers of a Civil Judge and those of an Additional Sessions Judge.
From such a combination of powers in the same person it does not follow that he is not an Additional Sessions Judge or that he is a Civil Judge and, therefore, does not fall under the definition of a 'District Judge' in Art. 236(a). Since such a post falls under that definition it would be Art. 233 and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules which would apply to him and not Art. 234 or the	Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955.
Articles 233 and 234 contemplate appointments falling under one or the other. It cannot be that an appointment would fall under both the Articles.	If such a construction	were to be 196 adopted, it would render the two Articles unworkable. There fore, in deciding which of the two Articles applies in a particular case, what has to be determined is what was	the intention when such	appointment was made.	Was	the appointment to the post of a Civil Judge under s. 13 of	the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance or one under s. 9 of	the Code of Criminal Procedure. If it is the latter, Art.	233 and not Art.	234 Would apply. Besides, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a Civil judge can be invested with powers of an Additional Sessions Judge. Where, therefore, a person appointed as a Civil Judge is also intended to work as an Additional Sessions Judge, an appointment has to made under S. 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as an Additional Sessions Judge.
Therefore,, such an appointment has to be considered as an appointment falling Linder the definition of 'District Judge within the meaning of Art. 236. Consequently, Art.	233 would apply to an appointment of a	Civil Judge as an Additional Sessions Judge. Since the appointments	in question were made in contravention of Art. 233 and were, therefore, illegal they must be held to have been validated under the new Art. 233A.
Mr. Bhargava, however, contended that even assuiming	that Art. 233A applies, the appointments in the present case were still invalid as in making them Rules 10 and	24 of	the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules were infringed.	As already	stated, Rule 7 provides that	recruitment to	the Higher	Service	shall	be made from two sources-, (1) by promotion from among the members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, and (2) by direct recruitment.	Rule 10 deals	with the number of appointments to be made and provides that	the number	of persons to be recruited at each recruitment	from each of the two sources and the period (not exceeding three years)	for which the recruitment is to be made shall be first determined by the Governor. The first proviso to that Rule states that the number of persons appointed to	the Service	by direct recruitment shall at no time	exceed	one fourth	of the total strength of the Service and the number of persons so appointed during my one period of	recruitment shall not exceed one-fourth of the total number of vacancies occurring during that period.	According to Rule 24,	the Governor ]its	to make appointments on	the occurrence of substantive vacancies	by taking candidates from the	two lists prepared under Rules 13 and 22 in the order in which the eligible candidates stand in the respective lists.	The result	is that given a certain number of appointments, the first three have to be filled in from the promoters and	the fourth	by the candidate selected by direct recruitment	and so on.
It appears from the Government's letter dated	December 8, 1962, that under Rule 10 the Governor fixed the number of 197 appointments to be made as 18, 14 out of which were to be filled	up by promotion and 4 by direct recruitment and	the proposed recruitment for these vacancies was to be upto	the period ending 1962. The contention was that under Rule	10, the period of recruitment is prospective and for a period not exceeding three years and, therefore, while	determining the number of posts for which recruitment was to be made the Governor could	not take into account	vacancies remaining unfilled at the time. Therefore, it was	urged that determination by the Governor of the number of	appointments was contrary to Rule 10 and Rule 24 and consequently	the proceedings of the Selection Committee based on such invalid determination were also invalid.
It is	true that out of the 18 posts as determined by	the Governor, there were 9 vacancies which were not filled up and were included in the number of appointments determined by the Governor. As a first step in the recruitment,	Rule 10 no doubt provides that the number of appointments at each recruitment from each of the two sources shall be determined by the Governor. Rule 24	also provides	that	the appointments so determined have to be filled in from the two lists prepared by the Committee and submitted by the	High Court,	three from those selected from the Judicial Service and the fourth from those selected for	direct recruitment and so on. But if certain posts intended to be filled up at the time of the last recruitment have remained	vacant for one reason or the other, they would be vacancies which	can be. filled up in the next recruitment.	It is difficult to see why those unfilled posts cannot be regarded as vacancies to be filled up at the next recruitment. There is in	fact nothing in Rule 10 or Rule 24 to preclude the Governor	from including them in the number of appointments to	be determined by	him. Even if	persons are appointed to officiate to such posts since their appointment would not be substantive appointment, they	would not acquire a	lien thereon	and, therefore, those posts remain unfilled until substantive appointments in respect of them are made.	They can, therefore, be included in the number of	appointments determined by the Governor under Rule 10.
Rule 6(3) in terms provides that the Governor, in consulta- tion with the High Court, can leave unfilled	or hold in abeyance a post for the time being. If it is	decided to fill up that post -At the next recruitment, there is no reason why that appointment cannot be included in the number of appointments determined by the Governor. . There is, in our view, therefore, no validity in the contention that	the determination. of the number of appointments by the Governor was contrary to Rule 10 or that such determination rendered the subsequent proceedings of the Selection Committee bad in law. The contention, besides, is academic for it 198 appears	that on November 9, 1960, 9 Judicial Officers	were confirmed in 9 out of the 18 posts with the result that only 9 posts remained to be filled up. In view of this fact	the High Court held that there were only 9 posts for which recruitment had to be made and, therefore, only 2 out of these 9 posts would go to the direct recruitees instead of 4 if those 9 officers had not been confirmed. The contention that the determination of appointments under Rule 10 was bad in law	has, therefore, to be rejected. We leave	the question of the claim of seniority of Respondents 6 and 7, if any, open as it does not strictly arise in this appeal.
These were the only contentions raised on behalf of	the appellants. In our view, they cannot be sustained.	The appeal	is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we do not pass any order as to costs.