Constitution of Committee ultra vires provisions of Articles 233 and 234.

Shivaraj Patil, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. After hearing for sometime, at the request of the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2, we adjourned the case on 110. 1996 to 211. 1996 with a view to enable the respondents to have consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. The learned Government Pleader made this request in “ the light of the stand of the petitioner that the rules impugned in the writ petition were made without consultation of Union Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the writ petition was not listed for hearing before us. However the petition was listed before us on 13. 1997. After hearing the learned Government Pleader for respondents, we passed the following order:

”When this petition was taken, up, learned Government Pleader, (Pondicherry) representing respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Government wrote to the Union Public Service Commission so as to consult about the rules in question and in response the Union Public Service Commission has addressed a letter to them stating that no such consultation is required relating to the appointment of Judicial Officers referring to Art.302(3) of the Constitution of India. It is proper for respondents 1 and 2 to make the position clear by filing necessary memo and affidavit. In this re-gard learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 prays time till 20.3.1997 to do the needful. Learned A.G.P. appearing for 3rd respondent states that there is urgency in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to take up the matter on 20.3.1997. In this view of the matter call this writ petition on 20.3.1997 at 2.15 p.m. “

2. It appears, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved the Registry on his part for taking up the matter urgently having regard to various circumstances. On the basis of the note prepared by the Registry as to the posting of the case urgently, the Honourable Chief Justice ordered for hearing of this case today at 15. p.m. Thus, the writ petition has come up before us.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is the Pondicherry Bar Association, represented by its Secretary, Dumas Street, Pondicherry-1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of declaration of any other appropriate writ or order, declaring the entire Pondicherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996 (for short, the ‘Rules’), or alternatively the Rule 9 (a)(ii) and (c), and Clauses 1(b) and 4(b) of the Annexure to the said Rules, as ultra vires Has Constitution of India and to pass such further order as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner after pointing out Arts. 233 of 234 of the Constitution of India, submitted that the appointment of persons as District Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of that State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State, and as far as the appointment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of such State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with the rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. This being position, either the Chief Secretary or the Law Secretary of the State cannot come in the picture in relation to appointment of persons as District Judges or other subordinate judicial officers in a State Judiciary. The learned counsel pointed out to Rule 9(a)(ii) and (c) and Annexure to the Rules.

5. Rule 9 reads thus:

”9. Method of recruitment: (a) District Judge -(i) by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division):

Provided that such number of posts as may be determined by the High Court from time to time, but not exceeding in the aggregate 33-1/3 % of the posts in the cadre of District Judge may be filled by direct recruitment; and

.(ii)