Swathi Sirapangi vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4324 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


    WRIT PETITION Nos.26681, 26685 and 26924 of 2019


COMMON ORDER:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


      Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being

decided by a common order.

      The facts of W.P.No.26685 of 2019 are reproduced as

under:-

      W.P.No.26685 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner

who has appeared in the examination conducted for the post

of Junior Civil Judge by virtue of a Notification dated

08.03.2019

claiming appointment to the post of Junior Civil

Judge by virtue of inclusion in the provisional select list.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a

Notification was published by the High Court in the Official

Website on 08.03.2019 inviting applications for 67 posts of

Civil Judges (54 by direct recruitment and 13 by way of

recruitment by transfer). The last date was fixed as

15.04.2019. The recruitment rules governing the field i.e.,

Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017, prescribed the

eligibility criteria and as per Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the said Rules, a

person who has been practicing for not less than three years

as an Advocate as on the date of publication of the

Notification was eligible to apply for the post of Civil Judge

under the direct recruitment category. Some of the

candidates who were not having three years eligibility criteria

approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.34953, 35166,

35195, 35978 of 2018 and 23658, 23659, 5284 and 5285 of

2019. This Court while hearing the said writ petitions on the

grant of interim relief has passed an interim order on

14.03.2019, which is reproduced as under:-

"We have seen the order dated 30.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.34953 of 2018 and connections which was issued by this Court in relation to the notification No.141/2018-RC dated 15.09.2018 issued for selection for appointment of Civil Judges in the previous year. We think that ends of justice require that the same situation be applied as far as the impugned notification is also concerned.

Hence, applying the reasons stated in the order dated 30.10.2018 in Writ Petition No.34953 of 2018 and connections, there will be an interim order that if the petitioners are eligible to apply for being considered for appointment as Civil Judge in terms of the notification impugned in this Writ Petition, those persons will be provisionally admitted for the selection process, by receiving those persons' applications, without insisting on the experience of practice as an Advocate; if those persons are otherwise eligible in accordance with the impugned rules and notification. Such persons, whose applications are received within the time fixed as per the Notification, shall be subjected to requisite test for which they have to appear. The result of the selection shall not be declared and such selection process in relation to such candidates will be provisional and subject to further orders. It is directed that the Registry will follow this order, not only as regards the writ petitioners, but also in relation to applications of other similarly situated persons, which are submitted within the time fixed for receipt of applications in terms of the impugned Notification."

In the light of the interim order granted by this Court,

the persons who were not having three years practice as an

Advocate were also permitted to appear in the examination.

The screening test was conducted on 11.05.2019 and the

merit list was prepared after the examination was over on

12.07.2019. 95 candidates qualified under the direct

recruitment quota and 3 candidates qualified under the

recruitment by transfer quota. They were called for interview

and a provisional select list was declared by the High Court.

The grievance of the petitioners is that they were included in

the provisional list which was published on 01.10.2019.

Their grievance is that subsequently a final notification was

issued by the High Court on 18.11.2019 and they were

deselected. Meaning thereby, they were not included in the

final list issued by the High Court. The undisputed facts

reveal that at the time when the provisional list was prepared

and published, the writ petitions preferred by the candidates

were pending and it was only after the disposal of the writ

petitions on 05.11.2019, a final list was published by the

High Court. The operative paragraph of the judgment

delivered by the High Court in W.P.Nos.34953, 35166, 35195,

35978 of 2018 and 23658, 23659, 5284 and 5285 of 2019 is

reproduced as under:-

"In the case of K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala

and others [(2006) 6 SCC 395], the Apex Court has

observed as under:-

"In addition, further requirements are necessary for assessment of suitability of the candidate and that is why power is vested in a high-powered body like the High Court to evolve its own procedure as it is the best judge in the matter. It will not be proper in any other authority to confine the High Court within any limits and it is, therefore, that the evolution of the procedure has been left to the High Court itself. When a high-powered constitutional authority is left with such power and it has evolved the procedure which is germane and best suited to achieve the object, it is not proper to scuttle the same as beyond its powers. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Kali Dass Batish [(2006) 1 SCC 779] wherein an action of the Chief Justice of India was sought to be questioned before the High Court and it was held to be improper."

The principle stated by the Apex Court cannot be

questioned. However, the said principle was stated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a different factual matrix. The

issue before the Apex Court was whether the High Courts

are empowered to prescribe the minimum pass marks in

written and oral examination in order to get the best

available talent or not? Therefore, the observations made by

the Apex Court are inapplicable to the present case.

Since in the case of All India Judges' Association

and others vs. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC 247], the

Apex Court had "directed" the High Courts to amend the

Service Rules and to delete any imposition of a pre-requisite

of three years experience at the Bar, and since Rule

5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules and the Notification dated 08.03.2019

are contrary to the said "direction", obviously Rule 5(2)(a)(i)

of the Rules is unconstitutional. Hence, the impugned

Notification, which is based on Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, is

equally unsustainable. Therefore, the imposition of the

said condition by Notification dated 08.03.2019 cannot be

read as an obstacle to the eligibility of those who are freshly

out of the law colleges. Even such fresh candidates would

be deemed to be eligible to apply for the post of Junior Civil

Judges in the State.

Therefore, this Court directs that the cases of the

petitioners should be considered for the post of Junior Civil

Judges, and if they are found to be eligible and suitable,

and are above the cut-off marks, their results should be

declared by the High Court.

All these writ petitions are, hereby, allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed."

Meaning thereby, the Division Bench of this Court has

held that those persons who were not having three years

experience are also entitled to participate in the process of

selection and taking into account the said judgment, a final

list was prepared.

The final list certainly includes more meritorious

candidates than the present petitioners and therefore, in the

considered opinion of this Court, as certain candidates were

permitted to appear and participate in the process of selection

provisionally by the order of this Court and once they have

succeeded in the process of selection and they are more

meritorious, they were rightly included in the final merit list

prepared by the High Court.

Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the publication of final select list and the

selection carried out by the High Court.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The

miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 14.12.2021 vs