RAMESHWAR DAYAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

RAMESHWAR DAYAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

The period of enrolment and practice as an advocate in the Lahore High Court prior to Partition, when recognised by subsequent legal provisions, counts toward the seven years' standing required under Article 233(2) for appointment as District Judge in the successor Punjab High Court. Respondents continued to be recognised as advocates, fulfilling eligibility requirements.

Parties
Appellant: Rameshwar Dayal; Respondent 1: State of Punjab; Respondent 2: Shamsher Bahadur; Respondent 3: Harbans Singh; Respondent 4: Gurdev Singh; Respondent 5: Hans Raj Khanna; Respondent 6: P. R. Sawhney; Intervener: Union of India; Intervener: Om Dutt Sharma; Intervener: B. D. Pathak
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 December 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment Dated September 21, 1959 in Civil Writ No. 1050 of 1959
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eligibility for Appointment as District Judge, Interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, Recognition of Legal Practice Before Partition
Constitutional Law Judicial Service Eligibility for Appointment as District Judge Interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India Recognition of Legal Practice Before Partition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rameshwar Dayal

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent 1

Shamsher Bahadur

Respondent 2

Harbans Singh

Respondent 3

Gurdev Singh

Respondent 4

Hans Raj Khanna

Respondent 5

P. R. Sawhney

Respondent 6

Union of India

Intervener

Om Dutt Sharma

Intervener

B. D. Pathak

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment Dated September 21, 1959 in Civil Writ No. 1050 of 1959

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents 2 to 6 were eligible for appointment as District Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India based on their past practice as advocates in the Lahore High Court prior to the partition of India.

Ratio Decidendi

The period of enrolment and practice as an advocate in the Lahore High Court prior to Partition, when recognised by subsequent legal provisions, counts toward the seven years' standing required under Article 233(2) for appointment as District Judge in the successor Punjab High Court. Respondents continued to be recognised as advocates, fulfilling eligibility requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appointments of respondents 2 to 6 as District Judges upheld as constitutionally valid.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.