Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)Article 233 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 320 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 245 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajendra Singh Verma (D) Thr.Lrs vs Lt.Governor Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 12 September, 2011
In Rajendra
Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi): (2011) 10 SCC 1, the Apex Court
while considering the challenge against the compulsory retirement of Judicial
Officers, discussed various judgments on Articles 234, 235, etc. and the
importance of the recommendation made by the High Court. It was reiterated that
the recommendation of the High Court in respect of judicial officers should always
be accepted by the Governor. Referring to Article 320(3)(c) it was held that the
Governor need not consult the Public Service Commission in the case of
recruitment of judicial officers and accept its advice and act according to it and
that there is no room for any outside body between the Governor and the High
Court. Though those judgments were in respect of Article 320(3)(c), the role of
PSC is already found to be very limited and that the Governor cannot go beyond
the recommendation of the High Court. Therefore, the consultation with the PSC
W.P(c).No.4352/2019-T 19
can only be a formality. Moreover, the Public Service Commission is not
entrusted with the process of selection for appointment under the Kerala Judicial
Service Rules also, as done in certain other States.
Article 148 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 187 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Bihar & Anr vs Bal Mukund Sah & Ors on 14 March, 2000
23. The consultation with the PSC envisaged in Article 234 is akin to the
provisions contained in Article 320(3)(b) as held in Balmukund's case (supra).
The absence of consultation cannot therefore be considered to be a vital defect
which can invalidate the rules. Therefore, the absence of prior consultation with
the Public Service Commission would be only an irregularity and for that reason it
cannot be said that the amendment rules have to be declared invalid.
In the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P2
amendment rules. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.