Honble MATHUR, J.—This is a public interest litigation filed by a public spirited person for maintaining the independence of the judiciary and speedy disposal of the cases. (2) The petitioner felt pained to see that a number of posts in the Subordinate Judiciary are lying vacant and the same could not be filled in because of the administrative problems and because of the time to time ban imposed by the Government on recruitment of the staff resulting in delay in the disposal of the cases for want of proper staff. He has filed this public interest litigation that since the entire administrative control of the Subordinate Judiciary vests in the High Court and once the funds are made available to the High Court, then subsequently, there should not be any government interference like issuing circulars from time to time imposing ban on the recruitment. This public interest litigation was received from a public interest litigation was received from a public spirited person and the same was registered as a writ petition on 7.4.1991 and notices were issued to the High Court as well as the State Government. (3) A reply was filed by the State and the State Government has taken the position that it is true that the entire control of the Subordinate Judiciary vest in the High Court but the orders issued on 6.6.1990 and 16.6.1990 whereby the surplus work-charged employees are required to be absorbed against the vacant posts carrying scale Nos. 1 to 6 does not amount to interference in the independent functioning of judiciary. It is further submitted that these orders were issued so as to avoid extra Financial burden on the public exchequer and the order does not amount to interference in the administration of the High Court. (4) Mr. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to a large number of cases on the. subject and submitted that according to the Constitutional provisions as well as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. Right from the beginning, it has been held that the entire control of the Subordinate Judiciary vests in the High Court including appointment and recruitment. subject and submitted that according to the Constitutional provisions as well as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. Right from the beginning, it has been held that the entire control of the Subordinate Judiciary vests in the High Court including appointment and recruitment. Therefore, the Government after allotting the budget has no control over the matter and they cannot issue orders/circular as to how the services of the surplus employees could be absorbed in the offices of the Subordinate Judiciary and they also cannot impose ban on the recruitment from time to time on the Subordinate Judiciary on recruitment. (5) In order to appreciate, the contentions raised by the learned counsel, we have to examine the constitutional provision on the subject. (6) Article 229 of the Constitution of India says that the officers and servants of the High Court shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Court and the administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances, and pension payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other money taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund. Article 229 of the Constitution of India reads as under: — "229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts — (1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or Officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose: Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. (3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances, and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other money taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund." (7) According to Article 229 of the Constitution of India, all the staff of the High Court shall be recruited by the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice will be competent to frame the rules and all the salaries, allowances and pensions shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. This is the setup regarding the High Court. (8) So far as the Subordinate Judiciary is concerned, it is governed by Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The control over the District Courts and courts subordinate thereof including the posting and promotion and all other incidental matters of entire Subordinate Judiciary including that of staff is to be controlled by the High Court. Article 235 of the Constitution of India reads as under: — "235. The control over the District Courts and courts subordinate thereof including the posting and promotion and all other incidental matters of entire Subordinate Judiciary including that of staff is to be controlled by the High Court. Article 235 of the Constitution of India reads as under: — "235. Control over Subordinate Courts — The control over District Courts and courts subordinate thereof including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this Article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law." (9) According to sub-clause (3) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India all expenses of the High Court shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. Under Article 202 the Governor shall, in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of that year. Under clause (2) the estimates of expenditure shall show separately (a) the sums required to meet expenditure described by the Constitution as expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State and (b) the sums required to meet other expenditure. Clause 3 gives the expenditure which shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of each State. Clause (d) says about expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of any High Court. Article 203 of the Constitution of India says that the estimates which relate to the expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. Article 204 relates to Appropriation Bills. The bill to provide for appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State must include the expenditure charged on the Fund. Article 204 relates to Appropriation Bills. The bill to provide for appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State must include the expenditure charged on the Fund. Clause (2) prevents any amendment being proposed to an Appropriation Bill which will have the effect, inter alia, of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grantor varying the amount of expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. (10) In this constitutional back-ground, that position that emerges is that the expenditures of the High Court have to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State and even the estimates of such expenditures which shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State shall not be subject to the vote of the Legislative Assembly, though it can be debated but such estimates are no subject to even vote of the Legislative Assembly. The idea behind this constitutional provision is that the High Court should for all purposes be treated as an autonomous body so as to be a watch dog on the two wings of the State i.e. Executive as well as Legislature. If the expenditures of the High Court are subject to the vote of the Assembly then the very idea of independent judiciary will loose its sanctity. Thus, keeping in view this constitutional provision the founding father of our Constitution have accorded a financial autonomy to the High Court and even the fund and the expenditure of the High Court have not been made subject to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. (11) A similar question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Gurumoorthy vs. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and others (1). In that case, the question was regarding the appointment of Private Secretary to the Chief Justice and the Government insisted that particular conditions should be attached to the appointment. A writ petition was filed before the High Court. In that case, the question was regarding the appointment of Private Secretary to the Chief Justice and the Government insisted that particular conditions should be attached to the appointment. A writ petition was filed before the High Court. As there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges, therefore, the matter was referred to a third Judge and ultimately the matter reached to the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble Supreme Court after examining the matter at great detail held as under : — "Exclusive power is conferred on Chief Justice by clause (1) read with clause (2) of Article 229 not only in the matter of appointments but also with regards to prescribing the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court by Rules. This is subject to any law of State Legislature but only in respect of conditions of service. The powers conferred on the Chief Justice under clause (1) of Article 229 cannot be abridged or modified in the matter of appointment. The approval of the Governor in the matter of Rules is confined only to sub-rules as relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension. All other rules in respect of conditions of service do not require his approval." (12) While dealing this aspect the Honble Judges also dealt with the financial aspect also in para 7 of the judgment, which reads as under: — "7. We may now refer to the constitutional provisions for determining the power and authority of the Chief Justice of a High Court in the matter of appointments of officers and servants of that Court. Clause (1) of Art. 229 provides that appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or Officer of the Court as he may direct i.e. his nominee. The proviso empowers the Governor of the State to require by Rule in certain cases to make appointments! after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. Clause (2) of the Article contains two important provisions. The first is that conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Chief Justice or his nominee. This is, however, subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State. Clause (2) of the Article contains two important provisions. The first is that conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Chief Justice or his nominee. This is, however, subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State. The second is that the Rules so far as they relate to salaries, allowances and pensions require the approval of the Governor. Clause (3) declares that the administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances etc. in respect of officers and servants of the Court shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. Under Article 202 the Governor shall, in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before the House or Houses of the legislature of the State a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure for that year. Under clause (2) the estimates of expenditure shall show separately (a) the sums required to meet expenditure described by the Constitution as expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State and (b) the sums required to meet other expenditure. Clause (3) gives the expenditure which shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of each State. Clause (0 reads "any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by the Legislature of the State by law to be so charged." Under Art. 203 the estimates which relate to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. Article 204 relates to Appropriation Bill. The bills to provide for appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the Stale must include the expenditure charged on that Fund. Clause (2) prevents any amendment being proposed to an Appropriation Bill which will have the effect, inter alia, of varying the amount or altering the destination of any grant or varying the amount of expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. Article 146 contains provisions relating to officers and servants of the Supreme Court in terms analogous to Article 229 the other provisions being also similar." (13) Therefore, so far as the expenditure of the High Court is concerned, it has to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State, which is not subject to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, once the Appropriation Bill is passed providing the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of the State, thereafter the State has no business to direct the High Court that in what way it would regulate its business. (14) In some what similar circumstances the same view was expressed by this Court also in the case of Rajeev Kumar vs. Dr. Kailash Nath Bhargava & Ors. (2). (15) Now, coming to the question relating to the Subordinate Judiciary. As it is established beyond doubt that the control of the Subordinate Judiciary vests in the High Court and none else, therefore, by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution of India it is only the High Court which can regulate the Subordinate Judiciary and this question has been established beyond doubt by series of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court right the case of the State of West Bengal and another vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (3) till this date i.e. in the case of R.M. Gurjar and another vs. High Court of Gujarat and others (4). It has been observed in the case of R.M. Gurjar (supra) as under: — "The nature and extent of control which vests in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India has been authoritatively determined by this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966, I SCR 771 ( AIR 1966 SC 447 )). Therefore, indisputably, the High Court is the immediate superior authority to the District Judge and the appeal against the order of the District Judge in this case would lie to the High Court." (16) Therefore, the legal position has been time and again reiterated that the entire control of the Subordinate Judiciary vests in the High Court and the Government cannot directly issue orders to the Subordinate Judiciary as it is not the controlling authority. It is only the High Court if it approves the certain directions of the State Government, then the same can be enforced by the Subordinate Judiciary so directed by the High Court, otherwise the State Executive cannot have any interference whatsoever. It is only the High Court if it approves the certain directions of the State Government, then the same can be enforced by the Subordinate Judiciary so directed by the High Court, otherwise the State Executive cannot have any interference whatsoever. According to the practice also, the budget for the Subordinate Judiciary is controlled by the Registrar and all the funds for the Subordinate Judiciary are placed at the disposal of the High Court and the Registrar being the controller of expenditures distributes the budget to the various subordinate courts looking to their need. Once the budgets are appropriated to the High Court and placed at the disposal of the Registrar for incurring the expenditure of Subordinate Judiciary the Executive cannot direct the Subordinate Judiciary that as to in what way they should spend their budget and likewise they cannot directly issue any circular to the Subordinate Judiciary that a ban is imposed on the recruitment of the staff. They can only request the High Court if such financial crunch is required and if the High Court feels satisfied then it can direct the Subordinate Judiciary imposing ban on the recruitment. If the High Court feels that the recruitment is an urgent need for the dispensation of justice for the subordinate courts then the High Court can ignore the same and no Treasury Officer can ignore the appointments made by the subordinate courts and refuse payment taking resort to the financial ban imposed by the State. Therefore, it should be clearly understood that once the control of the Subordinate Judiciary vests in the High Court, the executive authorities have no business to directly deal with the Subordinate Judiciary and the Subordinate Judiciary is not bound by any direction issued by the executive in discharge of its executive functions. Thus, the practice of the State Government to issue circular imposing ban on the recruitments from time to time will not necessarily apply to the recruitments in the Subordinate Judiciary as well as in the High Court. As for the High Court by virtue of Article 229 of the Constitution of India the Chief Justice is the sole authority and no Treasury Officer could stop payment of any candidate recruited by the High Court or by the District Courts taking resort to the so-called ban imposed by the Executive. As for the High Court by virtue of Article 229 of the Constitution of India the Chief Justice is the sole authority and no Treasury Officer could stop payment of any candidate recruited by the High Court or by the District Courts taking resort to the so-called ban imposed by the Executive. (17) Thus, I accept this writ petition and direct that no order of the Executive authorities imposing any ban on any recruitment in the High Court and the Subordinate Judiciary will ipso facto be applicable unless the direction is issued by the High Court. No Treasury Officer shall stop the payment of the candidates recruitment whereof is made by the High Court or State Subordinate Judiciary unless it is so directed by the High Court, otherwise it shall be construed to be a serious interference in the administration of justice. (18) A copy of the judgment may be sent to the Law Secretary/Finance Secretary/Accountant General, Rajasthan/all T.Os. and to all Presiding Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary etc.