Laxmilal Salvi vs Registrar General, Rajasthan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16652/2021

1. Laxmilal Salvi S/o Shri Rupaji, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Barbadi Ravan, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.

2. Nathulal Meghwal S/o Shri Kalulal Meghwal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Utharda, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

2. Registrar (Examination), Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For Respondent(s)        :     ----



        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                    Order

03/01/2022

The petitioner has challenged one of the conditions contained

in the notification dated 05.09.2021, which pertains to holding of

the competitive examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of

District Judge, 2020. Under the notification in question, the High

Court has invited applications from eligible candidates for direct

recruitment to the post of District Judge. Paragraph 6 of this

notification requires the candidates to submit online application

along with certain documents. Clause (f) of paragraph 6, which is

under challenge, requires the candidates to supply certified copies

of those 10 judgments of which the candidate has furnished

(2 of 3) [CW-16652/2021]

particulars while submitting online application form. According to

the petitioner, this requirement is not part of the recruitment

rules, and therefore, cannot be inserted through the recruitment

notification.

However, we notice that the recruitment and terms of

selection for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge are

governed by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Part-2 of

these rules pertains to direct recruitment. Rule 33 lays down

eligibility criteria for direct recruitment and essentially requires

that the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years and

must not have crossed the age of 45 years on the first day of

January following the last date fixed for the receipt of the

application and should have put in atleast seven years as an

Advocate. Rule 36(1) of the said rules pertains to submission of

application. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 reads as under:

"36. Submission of application.- (1) While submitting application, candidate shall furnish particulars of 10 judgments of the preceding seven years. He shall produce the certified copies of such judgments before the Main Examination, as prescribed by the Recruiting Authority. The Candidate is required to provide particulars of final orders/judgments personally argued by him, not being interlocutory orders, bail orders, orders based on compromise or orders of withdrawal of case."

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 thus requires a candidate while

submitting the application to furnish particulars of 10 judgments

of preceding seven years. He also has to produce certified copies

of such judgments before conducting the main examination. He

has to provide particulars of final orders and judgments personally

argued by him which should not relate to interlocutory orders, bail

orders or orders based on compromise or withdrawal of cases.

(3 of 3) [CW-16652/2021]

Clause (f) of paragraph 6 of the main notification thus traces its

root to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 of the said rules and is thus in

consonance with the statutory recruitment rules. Rule 36(1) is not

under challenge. The condition, therefore, cannot be set aside.

The petition fails and is dismissed.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                      (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                    1-MohitTak/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)