Judgment

RAY, C.J.I.:- These appeals are by special leave against the judgment dated 25 March, 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petitions.

2. The appellants in the writ petitions asked for a mandamus directing Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the appellants 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 Nos. 1 and 2 whereby the High Court was informed that the Government was not prepared to appoint the appellants to the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge.

3. 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.

4. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that the appellants had no locus standi to file the petitions. The reason given by the High Court is that the appellants were not appointed and they had no right to be appointed. They had also no right to know why they were not appointed.

5. 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.

6. The High Court thereafter recommended to the Haryana Government the names of the appellants for appointment as District/Additional District and Sessions Judges.

7. After 27 months the Government rejected the recommendation of the High Court. Thereupon the appellants filed writ petitions challenging the order of rejection and asked for mandamus for appointment.

8. 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 exception to the inviting of applications form 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 applications.

9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is 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 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 to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsburys Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana v. Subash Chander, (1974) 1 SCR 165; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahemd, (1976) 3 SCR 58 and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198.

10. 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 obligatory on the Governor to accept the recommendation.

11. Counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions of this Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1967) 1 SCR 77; Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court, (1970) 2 SCR 666 and A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) 1 SCR 620 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 recommendations. None of the decisions supports the contentions.

12. In these three cases the scope and content of Article 233 was examined. This Court has held that the Constitution contemplates consultation of the Governor with the High Co