Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mahendra Singh vs The High Court Of Rajasthan on 28 September, 2015
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC No(s).
17637/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15/09/2015
in WP(C) No. 12726/2015 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At
Jaipur)
MAHENDRA SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain
copy of the impugned order and permission to file SLP without
c/copy as well as plain copy of impugned order and office report)
Date : 28/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yadav Narender Singh,Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that the requirement in the advertisement indicated in paragraph 4(iii) is distinguishable from Article 233(2) of the Constitution, and as such, the reliance placed by the High Court on the judgment rendered by this Court interpreting Article 233(2) was improper. It is submitted, that reliance ought to have been placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Rameshwar Dayal vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 816, wherein in paragraph 12, it has Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Parveen Kumar Chawla Date: 2015.09.29 been observed as under:
17:52:28 IST Reason:
“Learned Counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to Explanation I to Cl.(3) of Article 124 of the Constitution relating to the 2 qualification for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court and to the Explanation to Cl. (2) of Article 217 relating to the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court, and has submitted that where the Constitution makers thought it necessary they specifically provided for counting the period in a High Court which was formerly in India. Articles 124 and 217 are differently worded and refer to an additional qualification of citizenship which is not a requirement of Article 233, and we do not think that Cl.(2) of Article 233 can be interpreted in the light of Explanations added to Articles 124 and
217. Article 233 is a self contained provision regarding the appointment of District Judges. As to a person who is already in the service of the Union or of the State, no special qualifications are laid down and under Cl.(1) the Governor can appoint such a person as a district judge in consultation with the relevant High Court. As to a person not already in service, a qualification is laid down in Cl. (2) and all that is required is that he should be an advocate or pleader of seven years' standing. The clause does not say how that standing must be reckoned and if an Advocate of the Punjab High Court is entitled to count the period of his practice in the Lahore High Court for determining his standing at the Bar, we see nothing in Article 233 which must lead to the exclusion of that period for determining his eligibility for appointment as district judge.” Issue notice.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master AR-cum-PS