The High Court can hire and fire district judges however it wants under Article 235.

Courts have clarified that appointment and removal of district judges are governed separately by Articles 233 and 234 (involving the Governor); Article 235 only covers day-to-day control like posting, promotion, and leave, plus disciplinary oversight.

Judicial officers have no recourse if the High Court makes a decision about their service.

The Article expressly preserves any right of appeal a judicial officer has under their service rules, and requires the High Court to act according to those prescribed conditions, not arbitrarily.

The Constitution of India

Article 235

Control over subordinate courts

The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto 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.§

Why this exists

Before independence, subordinate judges were often under the thumb of the executive branch (district magistrates and state government departments), which threatened judicial independence at the grassroots level. The Constitution's framers, especially B.R. Ambedkar, wanted to insulate the judiciary from executive interference even at the lowest levels. Article 235 was designed to shift administrative control—postings, promotions, discipline, leave—away from the state government and place it firmly with the High Court, which was seen as more independent and better suited to safeguard judicial integrity.

How courts read it

The Supreme Court has interpreted 'control' expansively. In State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi (1966), the Court held that 'control' under Article 235 is complete control over the working of subordinate judicial officers, including disciplinary proceedings, and that the Governor's role in matters like dismissal (under Articles 233-234) is largely formal once the High Court has taken a decision. In Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.N. Rao (1972) and later in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the Court reinforced that this control is exclusive to the High Court and meant to protect judicial independence from executive interference. Courts have also clarified that 'control' does not include the power of initial appointment or removal, which remains with the Governor under Articles 233 and 234, read with relevant rules.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The High Court can hire and fire district judges however it wants under Article 235.
Fact: Courts have clarified that appointment and removal of district judges are governed separately by Articles 233 and 234 (involving the Governor); Article 235 only covers day-to-day control like posting, promotion, and leave, plus disciplinary oversight.
Myth: Judicial officers have no recourse if the High Court makes a decision about their service.
Fact: The Article expressly preserves any right of appeal a judicial officer has under their service rules, and requires the High Court to act according to those prescribed conditions, not arbitrarily.