Telangana HC Upholds Rule Restricting District Judge Appointment To Lawyers In State, Says They Are Acquainted With Practice Of Local Court
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules 2023 as per which only advocates practicing in the state are eligible to apply for the post of District Judge. It observed that the object of such enactment is to acquire candidates acquainted with the practice of local Court.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok...
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules 2023 as per which only advocates practicing in the state are eligible to apply for the post of District Judge. It observed that the object of such enactment is to acquire candidates acquainted with the practice of local Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar have passed the order in a batch of writs filed by the residents of Andhra Pradesh who were held ineligible to appear for the District Judge selections due to the implementation of the 2023 Rules.
Previously, by way of an interim order the petitioners were allowed to appear for written examination.
The petitioners contended that the Rules despite being issued on the 10th of June, 2023 were deemed to be applicable from the 1st of January, 2023 i.e., retrospectively, which was impermissible in law. Additionally, they contended that the rules were ultra vires of Article 233 (District Judge selection) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench noted that the State Government has enacted the Rules in consultation with the High Court, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 233, 234, 235, 237 r/w proviso to Article 309 and proviso to clause (3) of Article 320. Further, it is a trite law that the Union and State Legislatures have the freedom to legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively.
“It is trite law that Union Parliament and State Legislature have plenary powers of legislation within the fields assigned to them and subject to certain constitutional and judicially recognized restrictions can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively.”
Adding to that, the Bench has relied on High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma to note that when the legislature is silent on certain specifications, the rule-making authority has the power to make rules to clear ambiguity.
“Thus, from aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that if Constitution is silent with regard to qualification/ condition, Rule Making Authority is entitled to prescribe such a qualification/condition. The qualification that a candidate must have practised as an advocate in the High Court or the Courts working under the control of High Court for not less than seven years as on the date of notification for recruitment to the post of District Judge (entry level) is not prescribed under Article 233, however, the same can be prescribed by the Rule Making Authority.”
On the issue raised, whether rule 5(1)(a) is arbitrary and hence infringes upon fundamental rights safeguarded under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Bench has referred to the prayers of the petitioners wherein only their non-eligibility to the post was challenged and not the rule itself and held that to invoke Article 14 details and materials to sustain such plea should be adduced, which were absent.
“Thus, no factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings with regard to challenge to validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of 2023 Rules. Even otherwise, the Rule has been enacted to ensure suitable and proper persons in the judicial service with a view to secure fair and efficient administration of justice and the Rule Making Authority is competent to prescribe qualifications for eligibility for appointment. The object of enactment of the aforesaid Rule is to recruit suitable candidates to Telangana State Judicial Service who are acquainted with the practice of local Courts in Telangana.”
The petitioners contended that rule 2(k) of the 2023 rules uses the phrase 'means and includes' which includes the High Courts of other States as well. And that the Rules have to conform with Article 233, which states that all advocates holding practice of 7 years are eligible.
The Bench rejected this contention and corrected the petitioners explaining the use of the phrase “means and includes” denotes a hard and fast interpretation, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression.
The Bench also referred to the Special Rules for Telangana Judicial Services issued by the Governor in 2017 and amended in 2020, where 'High Court' was defined as the Court at Hyderabad, before bifurcation and as High Court of Telangana after bifurcation.
The Bench lastly noted that the Notification that was issued in April 2023 for applications to the Post of District Judge references to the 2023 Rules. Considering the last date for submission of the Application was in March, it was noted the petitioners were not eligible ab initio.
In view of such analysis, the bench dismissed the petitions.
Case no.: W.P 18002 of 2023 & Batch.
Counsel for petitioner: C.Ramachandra Raju, R.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S.R.Sanku & P.Bhaskar
Counsel for respondents: . G.Vidya Sagar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tel) 02