Promotion of executive officer for discharging judicial function if not violative of basic structure of the constitution.

Hon. Chief Justice

1. These two Writ Appeals are preferred against the common judgement dated 21.1.1993 Writ L.R. 620 = 1993-1-L.W. 20 S. passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 3642, 9391 and 14305 of 1992. Writ Petition No. 3642 of 1992 was filed by Sri P. Manogaran, Secretary, Pondicherry Bar Association, whereas Writ Petition No. 9391 of 1992 was filed by the Pondicherry Bar Association and Writ Petition No. 10435 of 1992 was filed by one R. Vadivelu. The prayers made in Writ Petitions Nos. 3642 and 9391 of 1992 are similar in as much as they have sought for quashing of the appointment of Sri Edward Kumar, V.A., Special Officer-cum-Sub-ordinate Judge, Judicial Department, Pondicherry, with an only difference that in Writ Petition No. 9391 of 1992, a writ of quo-warranto to oust him from the office, and whereas in Writ Petition No. 10435 of 1992, apart from challenging the appointment of Sri Edward Kumar, V.A., the appointment of S.R. Pushpavalli, L. Veeranath Rao, G. Patric and G. Rajesurya, is challenged. Learned single judge has held that the appointment of Sri Edward Kumar is not in accordance with the Rules of recruitment and the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the appointment of Edward Kumar, V.A., has been quashed, whereas the appointment of others have been upheld. While parting with the case, the learned single Judge has also observed that though the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras has been extended to Pondicherry, nevertheless the Administrative control of the High Court over the Judicial Wing of the Union Territory of Pondicherry has not been given effect to. Therefore, it is high time that the High Court should assume its administrative control over the Judicial Wing of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Both the appeals are filed by the Union of India, District Judge and Secretary to Government. Edward Kumar, V.A. though filed a Writ Appeal, against the order of the learned single judge, setting aside his appointment, subsequently withdrew that appeal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, there is not much to be decided in the appeals. However, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that the question as to the administrative control of the High Court over the Judicial wing of the Union Territory of Pondicherry is necessary to be decided since in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement, the Union Territory of Pondicherry is of the opinion that the administrative control of the High Court of Madras does not extend over the Judicial Wing of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. In the light of this, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that they would also like to have the decision of the High Court on this matter, so that the legal position may become clear to them.

2. In the light of these submissions we have heard both sides on the question as to whether extending of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to Pondicherry did not include, or did not vest in the High Court of Madras, the administrative control over the judicial wing of the Union Territory of Pondicherry as contemplated by Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution.

3. It is not in dispute that by reason of extending of jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to Pondicherry by S. 9 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 (Central Act 49 of 1962) the jurisdiction exercisable by High Court under Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution is exercisable by the High Court of Madras over the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The doubt is entertained only as to the availability of power to the High Court of Madras under Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution over the Judicial Wing of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution deals with the administrative control of the High Court over Subordinate Courts. Art. 233 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of persons to be and the posting and promotion of District Judges, is as