Which one of the following is correct in respect of the appointment of District Judges?

Correct — C, They are appointed by the Governor in consultation with the High Court of the concerned State. Article 233(1) says that appointments of persons to be district judges in any State, and their posting and promotion, shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to that State. Two things are being tested at once: the appointing authority is the Governor, not any judge or the President, and the High Court's role is consultation rather than appointment.

• (a)They are appointed by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. — The Chief Justice of a High Court appoints nobody to the district judiciary. The High Court's power over the subordinate courts is control under Article 235 and consultation under Article 233, which are not the same as appointment.
• (b)They are appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. — The President appoints judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, under Articles 124 and 217. District judges are a State matter and the President has no role.
• (d)They are appointed by the Supreme Court on the advice of the concerned High Court. — The Supreme Court appoints no district judge. Its influence on judicial appointments runs through the collegium for the higher judiciary, not through the district courts.

Articles 233 to 237 govern the subordinate courts. Article 233 puts appointment, posting and promotion of district judges with the Governor in consultation with the High Court. Article 235 vests control over the district courts and the subordinate judiciary — posting, promotion and leave of officers below district judge — in the High Court. Article 236 defines who counts as a district judge, and it is wider than the label suggests.

Article 233(2) adds the qualification for a direct recruit: a person not already in the service of the Union or the State is eligible only if he has been an advocate or pleader for not less than seven years and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. That is how the bar route into the district judiciary works, alongside promotion from the subordinate judicial service.

• Article 233(1) — the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court.
• Article 233(2) — a direct recruit must have seven years at the bar and the High Court's recommendation.
• Article 235 — control over the district courts and subordinate judiciary vests in the High Court.
• Article 236 defines 'district judge' to include a city civil court judge, an additional or assistant district judge, a sessions judge and the chief judge of a small cause court.

• Sliding from 'consultation with the High Court' to 'appointment by the High Court'.
• Extending the President's appointing power from the higher judiciary down to the district courts.

As the appointing authority, as the seven-year eligibility rule, or as the split between Article 233 and Article 235.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Control over the district courts and the subordinate judiciary of a State is vested in

  • (a)the Governor
  • (b)the State Public Service Commission
  • (c)the High Court of the State
  • (d)the Supreme Court

  Answer(c) the High Court of the State — Article 235 gives it control, while Article 233 gives the Governor the power to appoint district judges.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A person not already in the service of the Union or a State may be appointed a district judge only if he has practised as an advocate or pleader for at least

  • (a)five years
  • (b)seven years
  • (c)ten years
  • (d)twelve years

  Answer(b) seven years — and he must also be recommended by the High Court, under Article 233(2).