Telangana High Court: A batch of writ petitions were filed by practicing advocates and Additional Public Prosecutors seeking quashment of order which rejected their applications seeking recruitment to the post of District Judge in the State of Telangana. Petitioners also sought a declaration to struck down Rule 5(1)(a) of Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023 (‘the Rules 2023’) as arbitrary and discriminatory and a consequential direction to respondents to permit petitioners to appear in written examination of District Judge. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ.*, and T. Vinod Kumar, J., dismissed the writ petitions and held that the advocates practicing in other states were ineligible for the post of District Judge in Telangana.
Background
The Government of Telangana issued a notification dated 12-04-2023 for direct recruitment to 11 posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in the Telangana State Judicial Service. The notification provided that the recruitment to the posts shall be made in accordance with the Rules 2023 and that practicing advocate in the High Court or Courts working under its control for not less than seven years as on the date of notification were eligible for appearance in the examination.
The State Government relied on the decision of Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 and in exercise of its powers conferred under Articles 233, 234 235, and 237 read with proviso to Article 309 and proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution and in consultation with the High Court by a notification dated 10-06-2023, framed the Rules 2023 and it was provided to be in effect from 01-01-2023. The Rule 5 of the Rules 2023 dealt with the eligibility for the direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer wherein, Rule 5(1)(a) provided that a person should be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of District Judge who had been practicing as an advocate in High Court or the Courts working under the control of the High Court for at least 7 years as on the date of notification. Rule 2(k) of the Rules 2023 defined the expression ‘High Court’ to mean and include the High Court for the State of Telangana with effect from 02-06-2014.
The High Court by an order dated 03-07-2023, rejected the candidature of petitioners on the ground that they were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria provided under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules 2023. Thereafter, a Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 12-07-2023 permitted petitioners to appear in the written examination which were held on 22-07-2023 and 23-07-2023. Presently, petitioners have appeared in the written examination and the result of the examination was awaited and thus, these writ petitions arise for consideration.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) were framed by the Governor regarding Telangana State Judicial Service in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 233, 234, 235 and 237 of the Constitution read with proviso to Article 309 and proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The Court further noted that Rule 2(i) of the 2017 Rules defined the expression ‘High Court’ to mean the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Thereafter, on 06-01-2020, amendments were made to 2017 Rules and the amended Rule 3(i) provided that ‘High Court’ meant High Court for the State of Telangana.
1. Whether Rules 2023 were in contravention of Article 233 of the Constitution?
Article 233 of the Constitution provided for the appointment of District Judges. The Court relied on High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma, (2022) 4 SCC 643, wherein it was held that if the Constitution was silent in relation to qualification/condition, Rule Making Authority was entitled to prescribe such qualification/condition. The Court opined that the qualification that a minimum practice as an advocate in the High Court or the Courts working under the control of High Court for not less than 7 years as on date of notification for recruitment of the post of District Judge (entry level) was not prescribed under Article 233, however, the same could be prescribed by the Rule Making Authority. Therefore, the Court held that the contention that the aforesaid requirement was in contravention of Article 233 of the Constitution, was misconceived.
2. Whether Rules 2023 could be enacted on 10-06-2023 from 01-01-2023, i.e., with retrospective effect?
The Court opined that it was a trite law that the Parliament and State Legislature had plenary powers of legislation within their assigned field and subject to certain constitutional and judicially recognized restrictions, it could legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. The Court relied on G. Mohan Rao v. State of T.N., (2022) 12 SCC 696 and held that the Rules 2023 could be enacted with retrospective effect.
3. Whether under Rule 2(k) of Rules 2023, High Court meant and included High Court other than High Court for the State of Telangana?
The Court noted that the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into two successor States, namely, State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 02-06-2014 and the High Court of Telangana was established with effect from 01-01-2019. The Court opined that Rule 2(k) of the Rules 2023 required that the advocate must have practiced for minimum 7 years and if minimum requirement would have been counted from the date of establishment of the High Court, then no advocate would have been eligible. Therefore, the Rule Making Authority used the expression ‘includes’ in the Rule 2(k) of the Rules 2023 which meant High Court for the State of Telangana with effect from 02-06-2014 to include the advocates practicing before the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh as well as before the State of Telangana for considering the eligibility for recruitment to the post of District Judge. Thus, the Court negatived the contention that expression ‘High Court’ used in Rule 2(k) of the Rules 2023 included other High Courts as well.
4. Whether Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2023 was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as advocates and public prosecutors practicing in States other than State of Telangana were ineligible for recruitment to the post of District Judge in the State of Telangana?
The Court relied on State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673, and opined that in absence of any pleading, the challenge to the constitutional validity was to be rejected in limine. The Court further opined that the Rule 5(1)(a) was 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 was competent to prescribe qualifications for eligibility for the appointment and also no factual foundation was laid in the pleadings with regard to constitutional validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of Rules 2023. Thus, the Court held that Rule 5(1)(a) did not suffer from any infirmity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the Rules, 2023 and advocates practicing in other states were not eligible for the post of District Judge in the State.
[Bodugula Brahmaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4105, decided on 27-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: C.Ramachandra Raju, R.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, S.R.Sanku, P.Bhaskar, Advocates
For the Respondents: G.Vidya Sagar, Senior Counsel; Swaroop Oorilla, Counsel
