Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.47 seconds)State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is
elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask
for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a
judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected
right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a
mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a
person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal
duty
363
to do something or to abstain from doing something (See
Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. I, paragraph 122;
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.(1) Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (2)
and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198.
The initial appointment of District Judges under Article
233 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government
after consultation with the High Court. The Governor is not
bound to act on the advice of the High Court. The High
Court recommends the names of persons for appointment. If
the names are recommended by the High Court it is not obli-
gatory on the Governor to accept the recommendation.
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors on 19 December, 1975
The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is
elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask
for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a
judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected
right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a
mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a
person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal
duty
363
to do something or to abstain from doing something (See
Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. I, paragraph 122;
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.(1) Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (2)
and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198.
The initial appointment of District Judges under Article
233 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government
after consultation with the High Court. The Governor is not
bound to act on the advice of the High Court. The High
Court recommends the names of persons for appointment. If
the names are recommended by the High Court it is not obli-
gatory on the Governor to accept the recommendation.
Chandra Mohan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 8 August, 1966
Counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions of
this Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.(3); Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court &
Ors(4) and A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
ORS.(5) in SUppOrt of tWO contentions. First, the Governor
should accept the recommendations made by the High Court.
Second, if the Governor will not accept the recommendations
he should give reasons for not accepting the recommenda-
tions. None of the decisions supports the contentions.
In these three cases the scope and content of Article
233 was examined. This Court has held that the Constitu-
tion contemplates consultation of the Governor with the High
Court inasmuch as the High Court is in a position to express
views on the judicial work of persons who are recommended
for appointment to the posts of District Judges. The High
Court knows the merits and demerits of persons who will be
promoted from the service to the post. The High Court
interviews persons who will be appointed by direct recruit-
ment. The High Court in those circumstances will select
candidates for promotion and direct recruitment and send
their names to the Government.
Chandramouleshwar Prasad vs Patna High Court & Ors on 7 October, 1969
Counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions of
this Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.(3); Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court &
Ors(4) and A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
ORS.(5) in SUppOrt of tWO contentions. First, the Governor
should accept the recommendations made by the High Court.
Second, if the Governor will not accept the recommendations
he should give reasons for not accepting the recommenda-
tions. None of the decisions supports the contentions.
In these three cases the scope and content of Article
233 was examined. This Court has held that the Constitu-
tion contemplates consultation of the Governor with the High
Court inasmuch as the High Court is in a position to express
views on the judicial work of persons who are recommended
for appointment to the posts of District Judges. The High
Court knows the merits and demerits of persons who will be
promoted from the service to the post. The High Court
interviews persons who will be appointed by direct recruit-
ment. The High Court in those circumstances will select
candidates for promotion and direct recruitment and send
their names to the Government.
A. Panduranga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 September, 1975
Counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions of
this Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.(3); Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court &
Ors(4) and A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
ORS.(5) in SUppOrt of tWO contentions. First, the Governor
should accept the recommendations made by the High Court.
Second, if the Governor will not accept the recommendations
he should give reasons for not accepting the recommenda-
tions. None of the decisions supports the contentions.
In these three cases the scope and content of Article
233 was examined. This Court has held that the Constitu-
tion contemplates consultation of the Governor with the High
Court inasmuch as the High Court is in a position to express
views on the judicial work of persons who are recommended
for appointment to the posts of District Judges. The High
Court knows the merits and demerits of persons who will be
promoted from the service to the post. The High Court
interviews persons who will be appointed by direct recruit-
ment. The High Court in those circumstances will select
candidates for promotion and direct recruitment and send
their names to the Government.
1