Judgement

SUBBA RAO, CJI. : These appeals - the former by certificate and the latter by special leave - raise the question of the scope of the field of recruitment to the cadre of District Judges.

2. The facts may be briefly stated. During the years 1961 and 1962, the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court called for applications for recruitment to ten vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service from Barristers, Advocates, Vakils and Pleaders of more than seven years standing and from "judicial officers". The expression "judicial officer" is a euphemism for the members of the Executive department who discharge some revenue and magisterial duties. The Selection Committee constituted under the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, hereinafter called the Rules, in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules, selected six candidates from the said applicants as persons suitable for appointment to the said service. Respondents 2 to 7 are the candidates so selected by the said Committee. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 were Advocates and respondents 5, 6 and 7 were "judicial officers". The Selection Committee sent two lists, one comprising the names of the three Advocates and the other comprising the names of the three "judicial officers" to the High Court. On September 4, 1964, the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court sent a copy of the report of the Selection Committee to the Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, wherein he mentioned that the Court had approved of the selection of the said candidates. Thereafter the appellant, who belongs to the U. P. Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and who was at that time acting as a District Judge, and others, who were similarly situated as the appellant, filed petitions in the High Court at Allahabad under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the Government not to make the appointments to the U. P. Higher Judicial Service pursuant to the said selection.

3. The said petitions were heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The learned Judges, Mathur and Takru, JJ. agreed on all points except on one: while they agreed that the selection from the Bar was good. J. N. Takru, J expressed the view that, as no notification was issued under Art. 237 of the Constitution, the selection from the cadre of "Judicial Officer" was bad. The question on which there was difference of opinion was referred to Oak, J., and the said learned Judge agreed with the view of Mathur, J. that the recruitment from both the sources was good, with the result the writ petitions were dismissed. The appellant filed an application before the High Court for a certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court. The learned Judges, in the course of their order, observed that in regard to the case of the Advocates as well as of the "judicial officers" no certificate could be granted under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution inasmuch as no money value could be given to the subject matter of the dispute that the certificate could be issued only under Art. 132 (1) or Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution if the terms of the said articles were complied with, that the case of the Advocates did not raise any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or any question of public importance as to attract either of the said two articles and that the case of the judicial officers raised such a question as to attract the said provisions. Having made those observations, the court allowed the application and gave the requisite certificate under Art. 132 (1) and Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. Pursuant to that order the High Court issued a certificate in general terms, which reads:

"It is certified that the case is a fit one for appeal under Articles 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India."

Pursuant to that certificate, on March 4, 1966, the appellant filed a petition to appeal in this Court impleading all the six candidates belonging to both the gro