Kerala High Court
Adv. Sangeerthana M vs Union Of India on 15 November, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) NO. 40476 OF 2024 : 1 :
2024:KER:85320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40476 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ADV. SANGEERTHANA M, AGED 26 YEARS
PUTHUKKULANGARA HOUSE, VAYANASALA LANE,
ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
RAMESH .P
ADARSH DHARMAJAN
PRAVEEN N. PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA, SANSAD BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 101, SOUTH BLOCK ,
RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
3 INTEGRATED HEADQUARTER OF MINISTER OF DEFENCE
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 3 CGO COMPLEX,
RAMAKRISHNAPURAM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
4 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, 21,
ROUS AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
WP(C) NO. 40476 OF 2024 : 2 :
2024:KER:85320
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
R BY SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, DSGI
SRI.RAJIT, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 40476 OF 2024 : 3 :
2024:KER:85320
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a young practicing lawyer.
The petitioner had completed the All India Bar
Examination and has been issued with Ext. P3
Certificate of Practice by the Bar Council of India.
She is desirous of serving the Country and aspires to
the position of Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the
Indian Army. The Indian Army issued Ext. P6
notification inviting applications from unmarried
male and unmarried female Law Graduates for grant
of Short Service Commission in the Indian Army for
Judge Advocate General Branch. The last date for
submission of application is 28.11.2024. The
educational qualification prescribed in Ext. P6 is as
follows:
2024:KER:85320
"(c) Educational Qualification
Minimum 55% aggregate marks in
their LL.B Degree (three years
professional after graduation or five
years after 10 plus 2) examination.
In addition, CLAT PG 2024 Score is
mandatory for all candidates
(including LLM qualified and LLM
appearing candidates) who apply for
courses starting in a particular year.
The candidates should be eligible for
the registration as an advocate with
Bar Council of India/State.
Candidate should be from a
College/University recognized by Bar
Council of India.
Note 1: Only those candidates who
are holding LLB degree and
Marksheet are eligible to apply for
this course provided they meet other
educational qualifications mentioned
at para 2(c) above.
2024:KER:85320
Note 2: All candidates desirous of
applying for JAG Entry are
mandatorily required to get their
CLAT PG 2024 result verified at the
Selection Centre prior to conduct of
SSB. If any candidate is unwilling/ is
unable to get the CLAT PG 2024
result verified, he/she will not be
eligible for SSB and their
candidature will be cancelled and no
representation will be accepted. It is
also informed that there is no
provision for offline application to be
accepted by the Directorate General
of Recruiting."
(underlining supplied)
2. The petitioner states that, as per Ext. P6
notification, a CLAT PG 2024 (Common Law
Admission Test-2024-Post Graduate programme
2024 conducted by the Consortium of National Law
Universities) scorecard is a mandatory requirement,
2024:KER:85320
whereas the eligibility as far as the educational
qualification is concerned is only an LL.B degree,
which is arbitrary, unethical and formulated due to
non application of mind and is violative of Articles
14, 16, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner contends that the requirement of the
CLAT PG 2024 scorecard for a post requiring only
an LL.B degree is inappropriate and unfair, as the
scorecard is meant for candidates pursuing an LL.M,
and affording the exam would be financially
impractical for those from poor economic
backgrounds. As per the job description in Ext. P6
notification, the training imparted under the JAG
entry scheme is not a postgraduate course.
Accordingly, the petitioner prays for direction to the
respondents 2 and 3 to correct Ext. P6 notification,
2024:KER:85320
removing the additional qualification required which
states as, " CLAT PG 2024 scorecard" to be given at
the time of submission of the documents.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Senior Central Government
Counsel and the learned Standing Counsel for the
Bar Council of India.
4. As per Ext. P6 notification, a CLAT PG
2024 scorecard is a mandatory eligibility
qualification for applying for JAG Entry. The
petitioner, being a law graduate is desirous of
applying for the notified vacancy but is prevented
from doing so because she has not appeared for the
CLAT 2024 PG program. The petitioner therefore
challenges Ext. P6 notification to the extent it fixes
the CLAT PG 2024 scorecard as a mandatory
2024:KER:85320
eligibility qualification for applying for the JAG
Entry, as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14,
16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Indian Army has issued Ext. P6
notification inviting applications from Law
Graduates for grant of Short Service Commission for
Judge Advocate General Branch. The eligibility as
well as educational qualification is fixed by the
Indian Army, the appointing authority. It is a matter
and part of their recruitment policy. It is the
prerogative of the appointing authority to fix the
eligibility criteria for applying for the post. This
Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with
the eligibility criteria or educational qualifications
set by the appointing authority, particularly, when
2024:KER:85320
there is no allegation of mala fides against the
appointing authority in fixing these criteria or
qualifications
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others [(2008) 10
SCC 1] held that the fixation of qualification and
criteria of selection are matters which fall within the
exclusive domain of the employer and that Courts
should be extremely cautious in interfering with the
exercise of such discretion by the employer. Further
the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Basavaiah v. H.L.Ramesh and Others [(2010) 8
SCC 372] and in Chandigarh Administration v.
Usha Kheterpal Waie and Others [(2011) 9 SCC
645] are also authorities on the point that the
prescription of qualification for appointment to a
2024:KER:85320
post is a matter for the employer to consider and
decide. There is limited scope for judicial review or
intervention by this Court in the selection process.
This Court cannot substitute the qualification and
eligibility criteria prescribed by the appointing
authority. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
2024:KER:85320
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER DATED
03/08/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 18/09/2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER DATED
26/03/2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ID CARD ISSUED BY THE
KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION TO
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ID CARD ISSUED BY THE BAR
COUNCIL OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3
