State Judicial Service - who is empowered to frame rules?

On a plain reading of Arts. 235 and 309 of the Constitution, it is clear that the power to frame rules regarding seniority of officers in the judicial service of the State is vested in the Governor and not in the High Court. Article 235 itself defines the outer limits of the High Court's power of control over the district Courts and Courts subordinate thereto. In the first place, in the exercise of its control over the district Courts and subordinate courts, it is not open to the High Court to deny to a member of the subordinate judical service of the State the right of appeal given to him by the law which regulates the conditions of his service. Secondly, the High Court cannot, in the exercise of its power of control, deal with such person otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service which are prescribed by such law. There is no power in the High Court to pass a law though rules made by the High Court in the exercise of power conferred upon it in that behalf may have the force of law. There is a distinction between the power to pass a law and the power to make rules, which by law, have the force of law. Besides, "law" which the second part of Art. 235 speaks of, is law made by the legislature because, if it were not so, there was no purpose in saying that the High Court's power of control will not be construed as taking away certain rights of certain persons under a law regulating their conditions of service. It could not have been possibly intended to be provided that the High Court's power of control will be subject to the conditions of service prescribed by it. The clear meaning, therefore, of the second part of Article 235 is that the power of control vested in the High Court by the first part will not deprive a judicial officer of the rights conferred upon him by a law made by the legislature regulating his conditions of service.  

It is the High Court, not the executive which possesses control over the State judiciary. But, what is important to bear in mind is that the Constitution which has taken the greatest care to preserve the independence of the judiciary did not regard the power of the State legislature to pass laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of judicial officers as an infringement of that independence. The mere power to pass such a law is not violative of the control vested in the High Court over the State judiciary. The power exercised by the Governor under the proviso is a power which the legislature is competent to exercise but has in fact not yet exercised. It partakes of the characteristics of the legislative, not executive, power. It is legislative power. That the Governor possesses legislative power under our Constitution is incontrovertible and , therefore, there is nothing unique about the Governor's power under the proviso to Article 309 being in the nature of a legislative power.  

It is true that the power conferred by Article 309 is "subject to" the provisions of the Constitution. But it is fallacious for that reason to contend that the Governor cannot frame rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the judicial officers of the State. The power to make law relating to seniority is vested by Article 309 in the legislature, and until it acts, in the Governor. Whether it is the legislature which passes an Act or the Governor who makes rules regulating seniority, the end product is "law" within the meaning of the second part of Art. 235.  

Though the legislature or the Governor has the power to regulate seniority of judicial officers by laying
down rules of general application, that power cannot be exercised in a manner which will lead to interference with the control vested in the High Court by the first part of Article 235. In a word, the application of law governing seniority must be left to the High Court. The determination of seniority of each individual judicial officer is a matter which indubitably falls within the area of control of the High Court over the district Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto. For the same reason, though rules of recruitment can provide for a period of probation, the question whether a particular judicial officer has satisfactorily completed his probation or not is a matter which is exclusively in the domain of the High Court to decide.