Judgement

SEN, J. :- These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated April 29, 1985 quashing the Cabinet decisions of January 30, 1985 and February 28, 1985 and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fill up five vacancies in the posts of District Judges meant for direct recruitment from the bar, by the appointment of respondents 1 and 3 to 6 as recommended by the High Court under Art. 233(1) of the Constitution. The issue involved is whether the issuance of a writ of mandamus by the High Court directing the Governor to act on the recommendation of the High Court to fill up the five vacancies in the posts of District Judges reserved for direct recruitment from the practising members of the bar under Art. 233(1) of the Constitution was constitutionally impermissible.

2. By the judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court has held that although it was not oblivious that the advice of the Council of Ministers to reject the panel of fourteen names forwarded by the High Court could not be subject to judicial review and that Art. 163(3) of the Constitution precludes an inquiry as to the nature of the advice given by the Council of Ministers to the Governor, still it had the power to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the basis that it was called upon to adjudge the legality and propriety of the decisions reached by the State Government through the instrumentality of the Council of Ministers. It was of the view that the reasons given on the basis of which the Council of Ministers on February 28, 1985 purported to review their earlier decision dated January 30, 1985 and decided not to appoint respondents 1 and 3 to 6 as District Judges on the recommendation of the High Court due to the non-representation of candidates belonging to the Latin-Catholics and Anglo-Indians, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 8th, 10th and 12th in the cycle of rotation as provided in R. 14(c), Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, were no reasons at all and the action of the State Government in rejecting the panel sent by the High Court was arbitrary, illegal and improper.

3. The facts : At the instance of the High Court, the State Government issued a notification on September 24, 1983 inviting applications from eligible members of the bar to fill up three vacancies in the cadre of District Judges by direct recruitment from the bar. The notification stated that the number of candidates proposed to be selected were three, subject to variation according to the exigencies. Later, the number of vacancies was increased to five. There were a large number of candidates from the bar and the applications were forwarded by the State Government to the High Court with request to make its recommendations. The Full Court at a meeting held on March 15, 1984 constituted a Committee of three seniormost Judges to prepare a panel of names. The Committee interviewed the candidates and drew up a list of fifteen candidates adjudged as eligible on an overall assessment of the merits. One of the fifteen candidates was Ms. Mary Teresa Dias, District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of Ernakulam belonging to the Latin-Catholic community. It, however, appears that the Committee by a majority of 2 : 1 felt that she was not suitable for appointment as a District Judge and accordingly deleted her name from the list of eligible candidates and drew up a panel of the remaining fourteen names. The panel of fourteen names submitted by the Committee was approved of by the Full Court by a majority at a meeting held on June 12, 1984.

4. On June 14, 1984, the Actg. Chief Justice sent up to the Chief Minister the panel of fourteen names as settled by the High Court for appointment as District Judges from the bar. It was stated that the appointments had to be made according to the cycle of rotation governing reservation of posts as laid down in R. 14(c), K