Okay, I understand. Since you provided only the title "Article 234 in Constitution of India" and the court and date, and no actual case content, I will create a hypothetical summary based on what Article 234 of the Indian Constitution concerns. This is a hypothetical case summary, as I lack the actual case details.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns the interpretation and application of Article 234 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State. The hypothetical holding clarifies the powers of the Governor in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court regarding such appointments.

Facts

A State Government initiated a recruitment process for civil judges based on rules framed under Article 234. A group of candidates challenged the selection process, alleging irregularities and violations of the prescribed consultation process between the Governor, the State Public Service Commission, and the High Court. The petitioners claimed that the State Public Service Commission's recommendations were disregarded, and the High Court's opinion was not adequately considered.

Issues

1. Whether the consultation process outlined in Article 234 is mandatory for the recruitment of judicial officers other than district judges.
2. Whether the Governor is bound by the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission in matters of appointment under Article 234.
3. What is the extent of the High Court's role in the consultation process under Article 234?

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioners argued that the consultation process mandated by Article 234 is a crucial safeguard to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the merit-based selection of judicial officers. They contended that the State Government's actions violated the spirit of Article 234 by undermining the role of the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. They argued that the appointments were therefore illegal and should be quashed.

Respondent's Arguments

The State Government argued that while consultation is required under Article 234, it is not bound by the recommendations of either the State Public Service Commission or the High Court. The Government maintained that it had considered the recommendations but ultimately made appointments based on its assessment of the candidates' suitability and the overall needs of the judicial service. The State argued that it acted within its executive powers.

Court's Reasoning

The Court held that the consultation process under Article 234 is indeed mandatory and a vital constitutional requirement. The Court clarified that while the Governor is not absolutely bound by the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission or the High Court, these recommendations must be given due consideration. The Court emphasized that the High Court's opinion, in particular, carries significant weight due to its expertise in judicial matters. The Court reasoned that any deviation from the recommendations must be supported by valid and justifiable reasons, recorded in writing. The Court stressed the importance of maintaining the judiciary's independence and ensuring that appointments are made on merit.

Conclusion

The Court ruled that the State Government had not adequately followed the consultation process outlined in Article 234. The Court directed the State Government to reconsider the appointments, taking into account the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, and to provide clear and justifiable reasons for any deviations from those recommendations. The court did not quash the appointments immediately, but gave the government a deadline to comply.