SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 459

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.N. GROVER AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
The State of Assam and another, Appellants
Versus
Kuseswar Saikia and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1969, D/-17-10-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Sr. Advocate (M/s. Naunit Lal and S. N. Choudhury, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Sr. Advocate (M/s. R. B. Datar and S. N. Prasad, Advocates with him), (for No.4) and Mr. S. K. Nandy, Advocate (for No. 5), for Respondent.

Advocates:
M.C.SETALVAD, NAUNIT LAL, R.B.DATAR, S.J.V.CHAUDHARY, S.K.NANDY, S.N.PRASAD, SARJU PRASAD

Headnote:

Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 132 and 233 - Assam Judicial Service (Senior) Rules, 1952 - Rule 5 (ii) – Conviction - Challenged - Appeal by certificate - It is this appointment under Art. 233 which is considered by High Court to be void - According to High Court this was a case of promotion of a person belonging to judicial service of State and High Court was authority to make promotion under Art. 235 - In this appeal view of High Court is challenged - history of this Chapter and why judicial services came to be provided for separate from other services has been discussed in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, (1966) 1 SCR 771 - This service was provided for separately to make office of a District Judge completely free of executive control - Chapter contains six articles (233 to 237) – Court are not concerned with Art. 237 in present case - Whether judgments given as District Judge were void since that question did not arise on a petition for writ of quo warranto – Held, Under new rules there is only one grade (i.e. grade III) in which Art. 235 can operate if at all - Since all posts there are equal and carry equal and carry equal pay there is no scope for promotion at all - High Court is thus right that there is no scope for exercise of the power of High Court to make promotions in case of persons below rank of District Judges (which term includes an Assistant District Judge) - High Court was thus far right - But High Court is not right in thinking that it can ignore hierarchy of courts as established by law and treat change as of no consequence - It is proved that this amendment was first thought of several years ago when there was some other Legal Secretary - It is also established that amendment was intended to bring in nomenclature existing in some other States without realising what effect it would have upon operation of Art. 235 in State - Remarks of the Chief Justice against Legal Secretary were unmerited - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 132 of the Constitution against the judgment and order of the High Court of Assam, February 5, 1969. It is filed by the State of Assam and the Legal Secretary to the Government of Assam and challenges a writ of quo warranto issued against Upendra Nath Rajkhowa, Distt. and Sessions Judge, Darrang at Tezpur declaring that he was not entitled to hold that office. It was issued at the instance of Respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal. These respondents on conviction by Upendra Nath Rajkhowa in a sessions trial, challenged their conviction inter alia on the ground that Shri Rajkhowa was not entitled to hold the post of District and Sessions Judge, Darrang. The High Court held that the promotion of Rajkhowa by the Governor as Additional District Judge by notification LJJ 74/66/65 dated 19-6-67 purporting to act under Art. 233* was void because he could only be promoted by the High Court acting under Art. 235** Consequently his further appointment as District Judge by the Governor by notification LJJ 94/67/14 dated 28-7-1967 was also declared by the High Court to be void. The High Court, however, held that Rajkhowa s simultaneous promotion as Addl. Sessions Judge was valid as that post was not included in the judicial service of the State and the Governor was competent to make the appointment. The High Court also held that his further appointment as Sessions Judge was also valid. The High Court, therefore, did not disturb the conviction and also did not pronounce any opinion on whether the judgments given as District Judge by Rajkhowa were void since that question did not arise on a petition for writ of quo warranto.

* Art. 233. "(1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of district judges in any 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."

** Art. 235. "The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district Judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law."

2. The Assam Judicial Service was constituted by a notification of the Government of Assam issued on August 25, 1952. The Senior Branch of the service was known as State Judicial Service (Senior) and it consisted of the following posts:

Senior Grade I

1. Registrar.

2. Legal Remembrancer.

3. District Judges.

Senior Grade II

Additional District Judges.

On April 9, 1954, the State Judicial Service (Junior) was created. Separate rules governed the junior service. The following posts were included:

Junior Grade I

1. Subordinate Judges.

2. Deputy Registrar.

Junior Grade II

1. Munsiffs.

2. Assistant Registrar.

3. Rajkhowa was originally a Munsiff in grade II. The Chief Justice of the High Court appointed him as Deputy Registrar and thus he was promoted to Grade I of the Junior Service. On June 19, 1967 the following notification was issued:

"No. LJJ 74/66/65 - The services of Sri U. N. Rajkhowa, Deputy Registrar, High Court of Assam and Nagaland being replaced at the disposal of the Government. The Governor of Assam in consultation with the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, and in exercise of powers conferred by Article 233 of the Constitution read with Rule 5 (ii) of the Assam Judicial Service (Senior) Rules, 1952 is pleased to appoin


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top