Chandra Mohan v State of Uttar Pradesh
Rule established
District judges may be appointed only from two sources: persons already in the judicial service, meaning a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill judicial posts, and advocates of at least seven years standing recommended by the High Court. Consultation with the High Court under Article 233 is mandatory.
Facts
- Rules framed in Uttar Pradesh governed appointment to the post of district judge.
- The rules permitted appointment of persons drawn from the executive or administrative service of the State, such officers having exercised revenue and other quasi-judicial functions, treating them as eligible along with members of the judicial service and advocates.
- Selection was made by a committee whose composition did not effectively involve the High Court in the manner Art.233(1) contemplates.
- Appointments so made were challenged by persons in the judicial service who had been passed over.
- The State contended that officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the administrative service could properly be treated as belonging to a judicial service, and that consultation with the High Court had substantially taken place.
Issue
- Whether members of the executive or administrative service are eligible for appointment as district judges under Art.233, and whether consultation with the High Court is mandatory.
Held
- The appointments were invalid. Article 233 recognises only two sources of appointment, and Art.236 defines "judicial service" as a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to it. The word "exclusively" is decisive: a service which includes officers performing executive and revenue functions is not a judicial service, however many quasi-judicial duties some of its members may discharge. A person in the administrative service is therefore ineligible, and no recommendation can make him eligible. The Court also held that consultation with the High Court under Art.233(1) is mandatory, and that a selection made by a body which does not effectively involve the High Court is bad. The scheme reflects the constitutional policy in Art.50 of separating the judiciary from the executive.
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitution deliberately narrowed the field from which the district judiciary may be drawn, and entrusted the High Court with a decisive voice, because the independence and quality of the judiciary depend on who is appointed to it and by whom. Permitting entry from the executive service would introduce into the judiciary officers whose careers had been formed under executive control, and would allow the State Government to populate the district judiciary with its own officers, defeating Art.50. The mandatory character of the consultation follows from the same purpose: a requirement designed to secure judicial participation cannot be satisfied by a formal reference.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading case on Art.233. State the two permissible sources, and the "exclusively" point from Art.236, which is where marks are won.
- Note the two independent defects it identified: ineligibility of the executive service candidate, which cannot be cured, and failure of consultation, which can be cured by repeating the process properly.
- Use it to give Art.50, a Directive Principle, concrete constitutional effect, which is a useful example in a question on the enforceability of Part IV.
- Contrast with State of UP v Manbodhan Lal Srivastava 1957, where consultation with a Public Service Commission under Art.320(3) was held directory. The lesson is that the character of a consultation requirement depends on the article and its purpose, not on the word.
- Read with State of Bihar v Bal Mukund Sah 2000, which held Arts.233 and 234 to be a special self-contained scheme that a general State law on public services cannot displace.
- Remember the third channel of recruitment recognised later, the limited competitive examination for serving officers, from All India Judges Association v Union of India 2002.
Source
Source: AIR 1966 SC 1987; (1967) 1 SCR 77; Constitution Bench; the leading authority on Art.233 and on the meaning of judicial service in Art.236; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.