jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
224. Appointment of additional and acting judges	224A. Appointment of retired judges at sittings of	High Courts
225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts	226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs	226A. Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be
considered in proceedings under Article 226	(Repealed)	227. Power of superintendence over all courts by
the High Court	228. Transfer of certain cases to High Court	228A. Special provisions as to disposal of questions
relating to constitutional validity of state laws	(Repealed)	229. Officers and servants and the expenses of
High Courts	230. Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to	union territories
231. Establishment of a common High Court for two	or more states	232. Interpretation (Repealed)
NOTES AND REFERENCES	1. These three high courts were set up under the	provisions of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.
2. With the creation of three more new states in 2000, the	number of high courts increased from 18 to 21. Again,	with the creation of separate high courts for the three
north-eastern states of Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura	in 2013, the number of high courts increased from 21 to	24. Further, with the establishment of a separate high
court for the state of Andhra Pradesh in 2019, the	number of high courts increased from 24 to 25.	3. Supreme Court Advocates v. Union of India (1993).
4. In re Presidential Reference (1998). The president	sought the Supreme Court’s opinion (under Article 143)	on certain doubts over the consultation process to be
adopted by the chief justice of India as stipulated in the	1993 case.	4a. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and
another vs. Union of India (2015).	5. The retirement age has been raised from 60 to 62 years	by the 15th Amendment Act of 1963.
6. In 1950, their salaries were fixed at ₹4,000 per month	and ₹3,500 per month respectively. In 1986, their	salaries were raised to ₹9,000 per month and ₹8,000
per month respectively. In 1998, their salaries were	raised to ₹30,000 per month and ₹26,000 per month	respectively. In 2009, their salaries were raised to
₹90,000 per month and ₹80,000 per month respectively.	7. The Criminal Procedure Code (1973) has effected the	separation of judiciary from the executive (Article 50
under the Directive Principles of State Policy).	8. The second provision was added by the 15th	Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963.
9. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997).	10. Originally known as Assam High Court and renamed	Guwahati High Court in 1971.
11. Originally known as Mysore High Court and renamed	Karnataka High Court in 1973.	12. Originally known as Punjab High Court and renamed
Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1966.	13. Though the names of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras	are changed to Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai
respectively, the names of respective high courts are	not changed.	14. In 2013, separate high courts were created for the three
north-eastern states of Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura.	15. Established by the North-Eastern Areas	(Reorganisation) and other Related Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2012.	16. Though the name of Orissa is changed to Odisha, the	name of Orissa High Court is not changed.
17. Originally known as Andhra Pradesh High Court	(established in 1954). In 2014, it was renamed as the	“High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad” and was made
a common high court for the states of Andhra Pradesh	and Telangana. Again, with the establishment of a	separate high court for the state of Andhra Pradesh in
35 Tribunals	T	he original Constitution did not contain provisions with
respect to tribunals. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976	added a new Part XIV-A to the Constitution. This part is	entitled as ‘Tribunals’ and consists of only two Articles–Article 323
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS	Article 323 A empowers the Parliament to provide for the	establishment of administrative tribunals for the adjudication of
disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of	persons appointed to public services of the Centre, the states,	local bodies, public corporations and other public authorities. In
other words, Article 323 A enables the Parliament to take out the	adjudication of disputes relating to service matters from the civil	courts and the high courts and place it before the administrative
tribunals.	In pursuance of Article 323 A, the Parliament has passed the	Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985. The act authorises the
Central government to establish one Central administrative	tribunal and the state administrative tribunals. This act opened a	new chapter in the sphere of providing speedy and inexpensive
justice to the aggrieved public servants.	Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)	The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up in 1985 with
the principal bench at Delhi and additional benches in different	states. At present, it has 17 regular benches, 15 of which operate	at the principal seats of high courts and the remaining two at
Jaipur and Lucknow1. These benches also hold circuit sittings at	other seats of high courts.	The CAT exercises original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment
and all service matters of public servants covered by it. Its	jurisdiction extends to the all-India services, the Central civil	services, civil posts under the Centre and civilian employees of
defence services. However, the members of the defence forces,	officers and servants of the Supreme Court and the secretarial	staff of the Parliament are not covered by it.
The CAT is a multi-member body consisting of a chairman and	members. Originally, the CAT consisted of a Chairman, Vice-	Chairman and members. Later, in 2006, the provision for the Vice-
(Amendment) Act, 2006. Hence, there are now no Vice-Chairman	in the CAT. At present (2019), the sanctioned strength of the	Chairman is one and sanctioned strength of the Members is 65.
They are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams and	are appointed by the president. They hold office for a term of five	years or until they attain the age of 65 years in case of chairman
and 62 years in case of members, whichever is earlier.	The appointment of Members in CAT is made on the basis of	recommendations of a high powered selection committee chaired
by a sitting Judge of Supreme Court who is nominated by the	Chief Justice of India. After obtaining the concurrence of Chief	Justice of India, appointments are made with the approval of
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).	The CAT is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil	Procedure Code of 1908. It is guided by the principles of natural
justice. These principles keep the CAT flexible in approach. Only a	nominal fee of ₹50 is to be paid by the applicant. The applicant	may appear either in person or through a lawyer.
Originally, appeals against the orders of the CAT could be	made only in the Supreme Court and not in the high courts.	However, in the Chandra Kumar case2 (1997), the Supreme Court
declared this restriction on the jurisdiction of the high courts as	unconstitutional, holding that judicial review is a part of the basic	structure of the Constitution. It laid down that appeals against the
orders of the CAT shall lie before the division bench of the	concerned high court. Consequently, now it is not possible for an	aggrieved public servant to approach the Supreme Court directly
against an order of the CAT, without first going to the concerned	high court.	State Administrative Tribunals
The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central	government to establish the State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)	on specific request of the concerned state governments. So far
(2019), the SATs have been set up in the nine states of Andhra	Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya	Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala.
However, the Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Himachal	Pradesh Tribunals have since been abolished.	But subsequently, the Himachal Pradesh reestablished the SAT
and the state of Tamil Nadu has also requested now to re-	establish the same. Further, the state government of Haryana has	requested to establish the SAT for their state. On the other hand,
the state government of Odisha has submitted a proposal for	abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal.	Like the CAT, the SATs exercise original jurisdiction in relation
to recruitment and all service matters of state government	employees.	The chairman and members of the SATs are appointed by the
president after consultation with the governor of the state	concerned.	The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint
administrative tribunal (JAT) for two or more states. A JAT	exercises all the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by the	administrative tribunals for such states.
The chairman and members of a JAT are appointed by the	president after consultation with the governors of the concerned	states.
TRIBUNALS FOR OTHER MATTERS	Under Article 323 B, the Parliament and the state legislatures are	authorised to provide for the establishment of tribunals for the
adjudication of disputes relating to the following matters:	(a) Taxation	(b) Foreign exchange, import and export
(c) Industrial and labour	(d) Land reforms	(e) Ceiling on urban property
(f) Elections to Parliament and state legislatures	(g) Food stuffs	(h) Rent and tenancy rights3
Articles 323 A and 323 B differs in the following three aspects:	1. While Article 323 A contemplates establishment of tribunals	for public service matters only, Article 323 B contemplates
establishment of tribunals for certain other matters	(mentioned above).	2. While tribunals under Article 323 A can be established only
by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323 B can be	established both by Parliament and state legislatures with	respect to matters falling within their legislative competence.
3. Under Article 323 A, only one tribunal for the Centre and one	for each state or two or more states may be established.	There is no question of hierarchy of tribunals, whereas under
Article 323 B a hierarchy of tribunals may be created.	In Chandra Kumar case4 (1997), the Supreme Court declared	those provisions of these two articles which excluded the
jurisdiction of the high courts and the Supreme Court as	unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available	against the orders of these tribunals.
Table 35.1 Name and Jurisdiction of Benches of CAT	Sl. Bench Territorial Jurisdiction of the	No. Bench
Delhi	2. Allahabad Bench Uttar Pradesh (except the districts	covered by Lucknow Bench) and
Uttarakhand	3. Lucknow Bench Uttar Pradesh (except the districts	covered by the Allahabad Bench)
4. Cuttack Bench Odisha	5. Hyderabad Bench Andhra Pradesh and Telangana	6. Bangalore Bench Karnataka
7. Madras Bench Tamil Nadu and Puducherry	8. Ernakulam Bench Kerala and Lakshadweep	9. Bombay Bench Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu	10. Ahmedabad Bench Gujarat	11. Jodhpur Bench Rajasthan (except the districts
covered by the Jaipur Bench)	12. Jaipur Bench Rajasthan (except the districts	covered by the Jodhpur Bench)
13. Chandigarh Bench Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,	Punjab, Chandigarh, J&K and	Ladakh
14. Jabalpur Bench Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh	15. Patna Bench Bihar and Jharkhand	16. Calcutta Bench West Bengal, Sikkim and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands	17. Guwahati Bench Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur,	Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram and
Arunachal Pradesh	Table 35.2 Circuit Sittings of Benches of CAT	Sl. Bench Circuit Sittings held at
1. Allahabad Bench Nainital	2. Calcutta Bench Port Blair, Gangtok	3. Chandigarh Bench Shimla, Jammu, Srinagar
4. Madras Bench Puducherry	5. Guwahati Bench Shillong, Itanagar, Kohima,	Agartala, Imphal, Aizwal
6. Jabalpur Bench Indore, Gwalior, Bilaspur	7. Bombay Bench Nagpur, Aurangabad, Panaji	8. Patna Bench Ranchi
9. Ernakulam Bench Lakshadweep	Table 35.3 Articles Related to Tribunals at a Glance	Article No. Subject-matter
323A. Administrative tribunals	323B. Tribunals for other matters	NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. See Table 35.1 at the end of this chapter.	2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997). Clause 2(d)	of Article 323 A was declared as unconstitutional.
3. Added by the 75th Amendment Act of 1993.	4. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997). Clause 2(d)	of Article 323 A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323 B were
36 Subordinate Courts	T	he state judiciary consists of a high court and a hierarchy of
subordinate courts, also known as lower courts. The	subordinate courts are so called because of their subordination	to the state high court. They function below and under the high court
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS	Articles 233 to 237 in Part VI of the Constitution make the following	provisions to regulate the organization of subordinate courts and to
ensure their independence from the executive1 .	1. Appointment of District Judges	The appointment, posting and promotion of district judges in a state
are made by the governor of the state in consultation with the high	court.	A person to be appointed as district judge should have the following
qualifications:	(a) He should not already be in the service of the Central or the state	government.
(b) He should have been an advocate or a pleader for seven years.	(c) He should be recommended by the high court for appointment.	2. Appointment of District Judges
Appointment of persons (other than district judges) to the judicial	service of a state are made by the governor of the state after	consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the high
court2 .	3. Control over Subordinate Courts	The control over district courts and other subordinate courts including
the posting, promotion and leave of persons belonging to the judicial	service of a state and holding any post inferior to the post of district	judge is vested in the high court.
4. Interpretation	The expression ‘district judge’ includes judge of a city civil court,	additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge,
chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate,	additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional	sessions judge and assistant sessions judge.
The expression ‘judicial service’ means a service consisting	exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and	other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge.
The Governor may direct that the above mentioned provisions relating	to persons in the state judicial service would apply to any class or	classes of magistrates in the state.

224. Appointment of additional and acting judges

224A. Appointment of retired judges at sittings of

High Courts

225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

226A. Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be

considered in proceedings under Article 226

(Repealed)

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by

the High Court

228. Transfer of certain cases to High Court

228A. Special provisions as to disposal of questions

relating to constitutional validity of state laws

(Repealed)

229. Officers and servants and the expenses of

High Courts

230. Extension of jurisdiction of High Courts to

union territories

231. Establishment of a common High Court for two

or more states

232. Interpretation (Repealed)

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. These three high courts were set up under the

provisions of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

2. With the creation of three more new states in 2000, the

number of high courts increased from 18 to 21. Again,

with the creation of separate high courts for the three

north-eastern states of Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura

in 2013, the number of high courts increased from 21 to

24. Further, with the establishment of a separate high

court for the state of Andhra Pradesh in 2019, the

number of high courts increased from 24 to 25.

3. Supreme Court Advocates v. Union of India (1993).

4. In re Presidential Reference (1998). The president

sought the Supreme Court’s opinion (under Article 143)

on certain doubts over the consultation process to be

adopted by the chief justice of India as stipulated in the

1993 case.

4a. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and

another vs. Union of India (2015).

5. The retirement age has been raised from 60 to 62 years

by the 15th Amendment Act of 1963.

6. In 1950, their salaries were fixed at ₹4,000 per month

and ₹3,500 per month respectively. In 1986, their

salaries were raised to ₹9,000 per month and ₹8,000

per month respectively. In 1998, their salaries were

raised to ₹30,000 per month and ₹26,000 per month

respectively. In 2009, their salaries were raised to

₹90,000 per month and ₹80,000 per month respectively.

7. The Criminal Procedure Code (1973) has effected the

separation of judiciary from the executive (Article 50

under the Directive Principles of State Policy).

8. The second provision was added by the 15th

Constitutional Amendment Act of 1963.

9. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997).

10. Originally known as Assam High Court and renamed

Guwahati High Court in 1971.

11. Originally known as Mysore High Court and renamed

Karnataka High Court in 1973.

12. Originally known as Punjab High Court and renamed

Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1966.

13. Though the names of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras

are changed to Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai

respectively, the names of respective high courts are

not changed.

14. In 2013, separate high courts were created for the three

north-eastern states of Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura.

15. Established by the North-Eastern Areas

(Reorganisation) and other Related Laws (Amendment)

Act, 2012.

16. Though the name of Orissa is changed to Odisha, the

name of Orissa High Court is not changed.

17. Originally known as Andhra Pradesh High Court

(established in 1954). In 2014, it was renamed as the

“High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad” and was made

a common high court for the states of Andhra Pradesh

and Telangana. Again, with the establishment of a

separate high court for the state of Andhra Pradesh in

35 Tribunals

T

he original Constitution did not contain provisions with

respect to tribunals. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976

added a new Part XIV-A to the Constitution. This part is

entitled as ‘Tribunals’ and consists of only two Articles–Article 323

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Article 323 A empowers the Parliament to provide for the

establishment of administrative tribunals for the adjudication of

disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of

persons appointed to public services of the Centre, the states,

local bodies, public corporations and other public authorities. In

other words, Article 323 A enables the Parliament to take out the

adjudication of disputes relating to service matters from the civil

courts and the high courts and place it before the administrative

tribunals.

In pursuance of Article 323 A, the Parliament has passed the

Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985. The act authorises the

Central government to establish one Central administrative

tribunal and the state administrative tribunals. This act opened a

new chapter in the sphere of providing speedy and inexpensive

justice to the aggrieved public servants.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up in 1985 with

the principal bench at Delhi and additional benches in different

states. At present, it has 17 regular benches, 15 of which operate

at the principal seats of high courts and the remaining two at

Jaipur and Lucknow1. These benches also hold circuit sittings at

other seats of high courts.

The CAT exercises original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment

and all service matters of public servants covered by it. Its

jurisdiction extends to the all-India services, the Central civil

services, civil posts under the Centre and civilian employees of

defence services. However, the members of the defence forces,

officers and servants of the Supreme Court and the secretarial

staff of the Parliament are not covered by it.

The CAT is a multi-member body consisting of a chairman and

members. Originally, the CAT consisted of a Chairman, Vice-

Chairman and members. Later, in 2006, the provision for the Vice-

(Amendment) Act, 2006. Hence, there are now no Vice-Chairman

in the CAT. At present (2019), the sanctioned strength of the

Chairman is one and sanctioned strength of the Members is 65.

They are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams and

are appointed by the president. They hold office for a term of five

years or until they attain the age of 65 years in case of chairman

and 62 years in case of members, whichever is earlier.

The appointment of Members in CAT is made on the basis of

recommendations of a high powered selection committee chaired

by a sitting Judge of Supreme Court who is nominated by the

Chief Justice of India. After obtaining the concurrence of Chief

Justice of India, appointments are made with the approval of

Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).

The CAT is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Civil

Procedure Code of 1908. It is guided by the principles of natural

justice. These principles keep the CAT flexible in approach. Only a

nominal fee of ₹50 is to be paid by the applicant. The applicant

may appear either in person or through a lawyer.

Originally, appeals against the orders of the CAT could be

made only in the Supreme Court and not in the high courts.

However, in the Chandra Kumar case2 (1997), the Supreme Court

declared this restriction on the jurisdiction of the high courts as

unconstitutional, holding that judicial review is a part of the basic

structure of the Constitution. It laid down that appeals against the

orders of the CAT shall lie before the division bench of the

concerned high court. Consequently, now it is not possible for an

aggrieved public servant to approach the Supreme Court directly

against an order of the CAT, without first going to the concerned

high court.

State Administrative Tribunals

The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central

government to establish the State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

on specific request of the concerned state governments. So far

(2019), the SATs have been set up in the nine states of Andhra

Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya

Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala.

However, the Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Himachal

Pradesh Tribunals have since been abolished.

But subsequently, the Himachal Pradesh reestablished the SAT

and the state of Tamil Nadu has also requested now to re-

establish the same. Further, the state government of Haryana has

requested to establish the SAT for their state. On the other hand,

the state government of Odisha has submitted a proposal for

abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal.

Like the CAT, the SATs exercise original jurisdiction in relation

to recruitment and all service matters of state government

employees.

The chairman and members of the SATs are appointed by the

president after consultation with the governor of the state

concerned.

The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint

administrative tribunal (JAT) for two or more states. A JAT

exercises all the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by the

administrative tribunals for such states.

The chairman and members of a JAT are appointed by the

president after consultation with the governors of the concerned

states.

TRIBUNALS FOR OTHER MATTERS

Under Article 323 B, the Parliament and the state legislatures are

authorised to provide for the establishment of tribunals for the

adjudication of disputes relating to the following matters:

(a) Taxation

(b) Foreign exchange, import and export

(c) Industrial and labour

(d) Land reforms

(e) Ceiling on urban property

(f) Elections to Parliament and state legislatures

(g) Food stuffs

(h) Rent and tenancy rights3

Articles 323 A and 323 B differs in the following three aspects:

1. While Article 323 A contemplates establishment of tribunals

for public service matters only, Article 323 B contemplates

establishment of tribunals for certain other matters

(mentioned above).

2. While tribunals under Article 323 A can be established only

by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323 B can be

established both by Parliament and state legislatures with

respect to matters falling within their legislative competence.

3. Under Article 323 A, only one tribunal for the Centre and one

for each state or two or more states may be established.

There is no question of hierarchy of tribunals, whereas under

Article 323 B a hierarchy of tribunals may be created.

In Chandra Kumar case4 (1997), the Supreme Court declared

those provisions of these two articles which excluded the

jurisdiction of the high courts and the Supreme Court as

unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available

against the orders of these tribunals.

Table 35.1 Name and Jurisdiction of Benches of CAT

Sl. Bench Territorial Jurisdiction of the

No. Bench

Delhi

2. Allahabad Bench Uttar Pradesh (except the districts

covered by Lucknow Bench) and

Uttarakhand

3. Lucknow Bench Uttar Pradesh (except the districts

covered by the Allahabad Bench)

4. Cuttack Bench Odisha

5. Hyderabad Bench Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

6. Bangalore Bench Karnataka

7. Madras Bench Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

8. Ernakulam Bench Kerala and Lakshadweep

9. Bombay Bench Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and

Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu

10. Ahmedabad Bench Gujarat

11. Jodhpur Bench Rajasthan (except the districts

covered by the Jaipur Bench)

12. Jaipur Bench Rajasthan (except the districts

covered by the Jodhpur Bench)

13. Chandigarh Bench Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,

Punjab, Chandigarh, J&K and

Ladakh

14. Jabalpur Bench Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh

15. Patna Bench Bihar and Jharkhand

16. Calcutta Bench West Bengal, Sikkim and Andaman

and Nicobar Islands

17. Guwahati Bench Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur,

Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram and

Arunachal Pradesh

Table 35.2 Circuit Sittings of Benches of CAT

Sl. Bench Circuit Sittings held at

1. Allahabad Bench Nainital

2. Calcutta Bench Port Blair, Gangtok

3. Chandigarh Bench Shimla, Jammu, Srinagar

4. Madras Bench Puducherry

5. Guwahati Bench Shillong, Itanagar, Kohima,

Agartala, Imphal, Aizwal

6. Jabalpur Bench Indore, Gwalior, Bilaspur

7. Bombay Bench Nagpur, Aurangabad, Panaji

8. Patna Bench Ranchi

9. Ernakulam Bench Lakshadweep

Table 35.3 Articles Related to Tribunals at a Glance

Article No. Subject-matter

323A. Administrative tribunals

323B. Tribunals for other matters

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. See Table 35.1 at the end of this chapter.

2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997). Clause 2(d)

of Article 323 A was declared as unconstitutional.

3. Added by the 75th Amendment Act of 1993.

4. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997). Clause 2(d)

of Article 323 A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323 B were

36 Subordinate Courts

T

he state judiciary consists of a high court and a hierarchy of

subordinate courts, also known as lower courts. The

subordinate courts are so called because of their subordination

to the state high court. They function below and under the high court

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Articles 233 to 237 in Part VI of the Constitution make the following

provisions to regulate the organization of subordinate courts and to

ensure their independence from the executive1 .

1. Appointment of District Judges

The appointment, posting and promotion of district judges in a state

are made by the governor of the state in consultation with the high

court.

A person to be appointed as district judge should have the following

qualifications:

(a) He should not already be in the service of the Central or the state

government.

(b) He should have been an advocate or a pleader for seven years.

(c) He should be recommended by the high court for appointment.

2. Appointment of District Judges

Appointment of persons (other than district judges) to the judicial

service of a state are made by the governor of the state after

consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the high

court2 .

3. Control over Subordinate Courts

The control over district courts and other subordinate courts including

the posting, promotion and leave of persons belonging to the judicial

service of a state and holding any post inferior to the post of district

judge is vested in the high court.

4. Interpretation

The expression ‘district judge’ includes judge of a city civil court,

additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge,

chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate,

additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional

sessions judge and assistant sessions judge.

The expression ‘judicial service’ means a service consisting

exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and

other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge.

The Governor may direct that the above mentioned provisions relating

to persons in the state judicial service would apply to any class or

classes of magistrates in the state.