JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:—These review petitions have been filed by the Union of India and various States raising general objections as well as objections to the specific directions given by this Court vide our judgment dated 13th November, 1991# to improve the service conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary in the country. The general objections which are common in all the petitions may be summarised as follows :

#Reported in AIR 1992 SC 165.

(a) As per Arts. 233 and 234 of the Constitution, the appointment to the posts of District Judges as well as to the posts other than those of the District Judges under the Judicial Service of the State are made by the Governor of the State. The power to regulate their conditions of service belongs to the executive subject to the legislative control. It is entirely in the purview of the respective State legislature, Government to determine the conditions of service and as such this power given to the State Legislature and the State Government is whittled down or curtailed by issuance of the specific directions in this regard by this Court.

(b) In S. L. Sachdev v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 411, para 13, this Court has laid down that the Court cannot interfere with or change the administrative policy of the Government unless it violates some provisions of the Constitution such as Art. 14 which requires that even an administrative authority must act fairly and treat its employees equally. No such ground was raised in the writ petition.

(c) The respective State Subordinate Judicial Services have service conditions that have been gradually developed and evolved over long years along with the service conditions of other Government services in the States/ Union Territories. Any change in the service conditions of the Subordinate Judiciary in isolation is bound to generate some demands from other services and it may be difficult for the State to resist such demands.

(d) The question of uniformity in service conditions is a question of policy pertaining to the respective State Governments which alone are competent to decide on the said issue and such decisions on the issue have various implications and ramifications which have to be determined by the respective State Governments by taking into account its financial limitations.

(e) The directions given by this Court involve a very heavy financial outlay and the State Governments with varying degrees of resources cannot implement the directions without considering and taking into account their own financial resources. Hence it is not possible to bring about uniformity in service

(f) The State Governments have constituted from time to time, State Pay Commissions for examining and scales to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service in view of the variations in conditions from place to place and from State to State both qualitatively and quantitatively. Hence the feasibility of referring the question of appropriate pay-scales of judicial officers to the State Pay Commissions deserves careful consideration. It may be possible to strive towards uniformity of pay-scales over a period of time with the co-operation of all the States.

(g) A mandatory direction enjoining upon the State to allocate resources to a specific activity would greatly impair the competence of the executive and the legislature to decide relative priorities in respect of the allocation of available resources on developmental and non-developmental activities. Any direction by the Government which involves spending sums out of the Consolidated Fund of the State/ Union Territory, would amount to a direction to the State legislature/ Parliament for carrying out necessary legislation for relevant appropriation. Such a direction cannot be given by the judiciary to the legislature.

(h) In terms of Art. 309 of the Constitution, matters concerning appointment, promotion, terms of conditions of service of the Subordinate Judiciary are to be decided by the State Government/Union Territ