Abstract:

In the case of Chandra Mohan vs State of U.P. and Ors. , Chandra Mohan filed a writ petition challenging the Constitutionality of the 1953 Rules. The Court partly accepted his appeal and held that the respondent was not eligible for appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service. The court held that the 1953 Rules were illegal as they contravened with Article 233 (1) and (2) and held that the authority given to the governor under the Rules was also unconstitutional. The court issued a writ of Mandamus. The Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 was introduced and Article 233 was inserted Constitution. The appellant filed another petition stating that the Twentieth Amendment was unconstitutional. The special bench of the High Court dismissed this appeal. The appellant sled another petition which was first withdrawn but later restored. According to the judgment, the recruiting rules were held as invalid. The appeal was dismissed.

Introduction

In the case, Chandra Mohan vs State of U.P. and Ors[1]. , a writ petition was filed by Chandra Mohan who was a permanent member of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch). He was officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge in the year 1965. He had a fear that because of the direct recruitment of Advocates and Judicial Magistrates to the service would hurt his promotion, so he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In his writ petition, he challenged the validity of the 1953 Rules and the merits on which the appointment was made of the Advocates and Judicial Magistrates to the service.

On February 21, 1966, the High Court partly allowed his writ- petition. It was held by the Court that the respondent, Shri Om Prakash was not an eligible candidate for appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service.

Against that judgment, the writ- petitioner made another appeal where his appeal was allowed by a judgment on 8^th August 1966 [Chandra Mohan vs. State of U.P. (1)].

The Court held that:

1. The 1953 Rules that provide the guidelines for the recruitment of District Judges were illegal as they contravened the Constitutional mandate of Article 233 (1) and (2).
2. The 1953 Rules give Governor the authority to recruit the District Judges from the Judicial Officers was also unconstitutional.

Later, the Court issued a writ of Mandamus giving directions to the state that it should not make any appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment concerning the 1953 Rules.

This decision demanded a remedy, so the Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 inserted Article 233 A in the Constitution. After this, the appellant filed another writ petition of February 1, 1967, where he challenged the appointment of Respondents 2 to 16 from Advocates and Judicial Magistrates, between 1953 and 1964. In this writ petition, the appellant said that the Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act was unconstitutional as it affects the provisions of Article 129, 141, and 142 of the Constitution, and could not have been enacted without ratifying the provision (b) of the Article 368 of the Constitution. He also said that the 1953 Rules affect Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The special bench of the High Court upheld the validity of Article 233 A and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on January 6, 1969.

The State Government issued a notification confirming respondents 11 to 13 as Civil and Sessions Judge with effective from 27^th May 1968, 31^st May 1968, and 1^st June 1968, respectively. The appellant on 8^th October 1969 sled a petition in the court for the leave to urge additional grounds and also challenged the validity of this notification.

Initially, the court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. But the petition was supported by an affidavit which was made by the appellant, therefore, the appeal was restored.

According to the judgment, the rules related to the recruitment appointment of District Judges were held to be invalid because they violated the constitutional mandate of Articles 233 (1) and (2). But it was referred only to the Rules 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 19 whereas no reference was made to Rules 20 and 23. Therefore, it was concluded that Rules 20 and 23 were not directly made invalid. Later it was open to the competent authority to determine the seniority of the appellant concerning Rule 20.

Concerning all the observations made, the appeal was dismissed and left everything on the parties to bear their costs.

Background

Chandra Mohan who was officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge in 1965 filed a writ petition challenging the validity of 1953 Rules. His petition was allowed by the High Court on 21^st February 1966. The court held that Shri Om Prakash (the respondent) was not an eligible candidate for an appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service. The court stated that the 1953 Rules were illegal because they contravened with Article 233 (1) and (2) of the Indian Constitution and it also held that the authority given to the Governor to recruit the members was also unconstitutional. A writ of Mandamus was issued by the Court. The Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 was introduced and Article 233 was inserted in the Indian Constitution. The appellant filed another writ petition stating that the Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 was unconstitutional. The special bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal by stating the validity of Article 233 A. The appellant on 28^th October 1969 sled another petition which was first withdrawn but later was restored. According to the judgment the recruiting rules were held as invalid but no reference was made for Rules 20 and 23 that whether they were valid or not.

Facts

1. Chandra Mohan was an officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge in 1965 filed a writ petition challenging the validity of 1953 Rules.
2. On February 21, 1966, the High Court partly allowed his writ petition.
3. The court held that Shri Om Prakash (the respondent) was not an eligible candidate for an appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service.
4. The court held that the 1953 Rules were illegal as they contravened with Article 233 (1) and (2) of the Indian Constitution.
5. The Court also held that the authority given to the governor under the 1953 Rules was also unconstitutional.
6. The court issued a writ of Mandamus.
7. The Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 was introduced and Article 233 was inserted in the Indian Constitution.
8. The appellant filed another writ petition stating that the Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 was unconstitutional.
9. The special bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal by stating the validity of Article 233 A.
10. The appellant on 28^th October 1969 sled another petition which was first withdrawn but later was restored.
11. According to the judgment the recruiting rules were held as invalid but no reference was made concerning Rules 20 and 23 that whether they were valid or not.
12. Regarding the observations, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues

1. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the 1953 Rules and the guidelines for the appointment of Advocates and Judicial Magistrates to the Service.
2. A writ of Mandamus issued by the Court
3. Appeal contending the unconstitutionality of Article 233 A of the Indian Constitution
4. Rules 20 and 23 will be considered invalid.

Related Provisions

• Article 129 of the Indian Constitution: Article 129 of the Indian Constitution defines the “Supreme Court to be a court of record”[2]. It says that the Supreme Court will be the court of record and it will have the authority of the court and will also have the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 132 of the Indian Constitution: Article 132 of the Indian Constitution defines “Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases”[3].
• Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that all the individuals are equal in the eyes of law.
• Article 141 bare of the Indian Constitution: Article 141 of the Indian Constitution states that any law which is declared by the Supreme Court of India shall act as binding on all the other Courts.
• Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: Article 142 of the Indian Constitution defines “Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.”[4]
• Article 16 of the Indian Constitution: Article 16 of the Indian Constitution states that every citizen will be given equal opportunities in all the matters concerning public employment.
• Article 226 of the Indian Constitution: Article 226 of the Indian Constitution states that the High Court has the authority to issue writs.
• Article 133 of the Indian Constitution: Article 133 of the Indian Constitution defines, “appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts regarding civil matters.”[5]
• Article 233 of the Indian Constitution: Article 233 of the Indian Constitution states about the appointment of the District judges.
• Article 233 A of the Indian Constitution: Article 233 A of the Indian Constitution defines, “Validation of appointments of, and judgments, etc., delivered by, certain district judges.”[6]
• Article 309 of the Indian Constitution: Article 309 of the Indian Constitution defines, “Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.”[7]
• Article 368 of the Indian Constitution: Article 368 of the Indian Constitution states about the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and the followed procedures.

Related Cases

Chandra Mohan vs.  State of U.P (1)

Judgment

The appellant’s writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which challenged the validity of the 1953 Rules, and the appointment merits of Advocates and Judicial Magistrates to the service was partly allowed by the High Court. It was also held that the Respondent, Shri Om Prakash was not eligible for appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service.

When the writ- petitioner further made an appeal it was held that:

1. The 1953 Rules that provide the guidelines for the recruitment of the District Judges violated the Constitutional mandate of Article 233 (1) and (2). So, the Rules and all the appointments made were held illegal.
2. The 1953 Rules that gave the authority to the Governor to recruit District Judges from the Judicial Officers were also held as unconstitutional.

As a result of these findings, a writ of mandamus was issued by the Court directing Respondent 1 (State) to not make an appointment through the direct recruitment method concerning the 1953 Rules.

The Constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 was introduced and Article 233 A was inserted.

The Special Bench of the High Court upheld the validity of Article 233 A and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on January 6, 1969.

The State Government issued a notification confirming respondents 11 to 13 as Civil and Sessions Judge with effective from 27^th May 1968, 31^st May 1968, and 1^st June 1968, respectively. The appellant sled a petition in the court for the leave to urge additional grounds and also challenged the validity of this notification. Initially, the appeal was withdrawn but the petition was supported by an affidavit which was made by the appellant, therefore, the appeal was restored.

According to the judgment, the rules related to the recruitment appointment of District Judges were held to be invalid because they violated the constitutional mandate of Articles 233 (1) and (2). But it was referred only to the Rules 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 19 whereas no reference was made to Rules 20 and 23. Therefore, it was concluded that Rules 20 and 23 were not directly made invalid. Later it was open to the competent authority to determine the seniority of the appellant concerning Rule 20.

Concerning all the observations made, the appeal was dismissed and left everything on the parties to bear their costs.

The appeal was dismissed.

Concepts Highlighted

• The case was revolving around the constitutionality of the 1953 rules.
• The Articles involved were 129, 132, 133 (1) ©, 14, 141, 142, 16, 226, 233, 233A, 309 and 368.
• The officiating officer Chandra Mohan made an appeal challenging the validity of the 1953 Rules.
• The court issued the writ of Mandamus.
• The 1953 Rules were held unconstitutional.
• All the recruitments made by following the guidelines of the 1953 Rules were held illegal.
• The constitution (Twentieth) Amendment Act, 1966 inserted Article 233 A in the Indian Constitution.
• The appeal was filed where the constitutionality of the Twentieth Amendment was also challenged.
• The 1953 Rules were held invalid and unconstitutional, but nothing was said about the validity of Rule 20 and 23.
• The appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion

By going through the case of Chandra Mohan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. , it is clear that the 1953 rules were held as illegal and the recruitments appointment of District Judges was held to be invalid. It was also concluded that the Rules 20 and 23 were not directly made invalid.

About all the observations made, the appeal was dismissed and left everything on the parties to bear their own cost.

References

• https://www.manupatrafast.com/
• Bare Act of The Constitution of India
• Constitution of India by M.P. Jain

• [1] MANU/SC/0434/1976
• [2] Bare act of the Constitution of India
• [3] Bare act of the Constitution of India
• [4] Bare act of the Constitution of India
• [5] Bare act of the Constitution of India
• [6] Bare act of the Constitution of India
• [7] Bare act of the Constitution of India