TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharging purely judicial functions. In view of art. 229 of the Constitution. the power to appoint the Registrar of the High Court is exclusively that of the Chief Justice. Neither the High Court as such nor the Governor has any hand in his appointment. The power to appoint the secretaries to the government is that of the Governor. Under the Government of India Act 1935, the power to transfer a district judge from one post to another was that of the Governor though that power was always exercised in consultation with the High Court and by and large on the recommendation of the High Court. In Orissa, as in most of the other States, that practice continued till the decision of tiffs Court in the State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad and others([1967] 1 S.C.R. 454). Obviously when the Governor promulgated the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963, he proceeded on the basis that the power to transfer the district judges and addl. district judges, from one post to another whether as a judge or to one of the posts in the secretariat was in his hands. It appears that for some time past there were differences between the High Court and the government about the posting of some of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was reluctant. Every time the High Court requested the government to release the three officers mentioned above for 'being posted as district and sessions judges or addl. district and sessions judges as the case may be, the government turned down those requests on one ground or the other. We do not think that it was proper for the government to do so. But at that stage the High Court felt helpless as it was under the impression that under law the Governor was the sole authority to effect the. necessary transfers. On September 21 1966, this Court rendered its decision in Ranga Mahammad's(1) case. Therein this Court held that power to transfer judges presiding over courts vested with the High Court under art. 235 of the Constitution. Soon after that decision was rendered and without any further dialogue with government in the' light of that decision, the High Court took the precipitate step of transferring the aforementioned officers to other posts and in their place posted officers who were doing judicial work till then. By its order dated October 10, 1966, the High Court ordered the following transfers: (a) Shri K.B. Panda who was attached to the commission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the prayer made on behalf of the government to stay the operation of its decision till necessary orders were obtained from this Court. It directed the government to implement its orders forthwith. Having no. alternative before it, the government implemented the orders in question on March 6 1967, on the very day the decision of the High Court was rendered. The government's prayer for necessary certificates for leave to appeal to this Court was rejected. Therefore, these appeals were filed after obtaining special leave from this Court. The order of the High Court consists of two parts, namely, (1) holding that Shri B.K. Patro, Shri K.K. Bose and Shri P.C. Dey had no authority to act as law secretary, superintendent and legal remembrancer and member sales tax tribunal, respectively, on and after October 10, 1966, and (2) commanding the State of Orissa, the Chief Secretary to the government of Orissa, the Home Secretary to the government of Orissa, Shri P.C. Dey, Shri K.K. Bose and Shri Patro to implement the transfers ordered by the High Court on October 10, 1966. It was not the case of the contesting respondents that Shri P.C. Dey, Shri K.K. Bose and Shri B.K. Patro had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice the High Court would not have had any right to fill those posts. But we were told that in view of the decisions of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi([1966] 1 S C R 771) and State of Assam v. Ranga Mahammad([1967] 1 S.C.R. 454) the High Court must be held to have that right as those posts are included in the cadre of superior judicial service. Before considering the correctness of that submission it is necessary to notice that this argument breaks down when we come to the question of filling up the post of the Registrar. If the argument advanced on behalf of the High Court is correct. the High Court must also have, the power to fill up the post of the Registrar as that is also Included in the cadre. Now let us consider the ratio of the decisions in Nripendra Nath Bagchi's case (1), and Ranga Mahammad's (2) case. In Bagchi's case,(1), this Court laid down that the word control found in Art. 235 includes disciplinary jurisdiction as well. The only question that fell for decision in that case was whether the government of West Bengal was competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against an addl. district and sessions judge. This Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted in the High Court under Art. 235 as the control given to the High Court over the district courts under that Article includes control over the officers who preside over those courts. Proceeding further this Court observed: This is, of course, as it should be, the High Court is in the day to day control of courts and knows the capacity for work of individuals and the requirements of a particular station or Court. The High Court is better suited to make transfers than a Minister. For however well-meaning a Minister may be he can never possess the same intimate knowledge of the working of the judiciary as a whole and of individual Judges, as the High Court. He must depend on his department for information. The Chief Justice and his colleagues know these matters and deal with them personally. There is less chance of being influenced by secretaries who may withhold some vital information if they are interested themselves. It is also well known that all stations are not similar in climate and education, medical and other facilities. Some are good stations and some are not so good. There is less chance of success for a person seeking advantage for himself if the Chief Justice and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all. It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it. Neither Bagchi's case nor Ranga Mahammad's case is of any assistance to us in deciding the question whether the High Court has competence to fill some of the posts in the secretariat by transfer judicial officers under Its control. Just as the executive cannot know the requirements of a particular court, the High Court also cannot know the requirements of any post in the secretariat. Just as the High Court resents any interference by the executive in the functioning of the judiciary, the executive has a right to ask the High Court not to interfere with its functions. It is for the executive to say whether a particular officer would meet its requirements or not. The High Court cannot, as contended by the learned Attorney-General, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecial role of its own. But our Constitution expects all of them to work in harmony in a spirit of service. As Shri K.K. Bose and Shri B.K. Patro had not been placed at the disposal of the government for any definite period, it was open to the High Court to recall them and post them as presiding officers of district courts. Hence, the High Court was within its powers in posting Shri B.K. Patro as district and sessions judge of Ganjam-Boudh division, Shri K.K. Bose as district and sessions judge of Mayurbhanj-Keonjhar division, and Shri P.C. Dey as district and sessions judge of Bolangir-kalahandi division though it would have been graceful if it had effected those transfers after reasonable notice to the government. But it was beyond the powers of the High Court to post Shri K.B. Panda as the law secretary, Shri T. Misra as superintendent and legal remembrancer and Shri P.K. Mohanti as the deputy law secretary. That part of the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable. But as mentioned earlier, the government has already implemented that part of the order as well. Those officers are now functioning in the posts to which they were transferred. The learned Attorney-General t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
