Poosa Manasa vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2300 Tel

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
                       AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

              WRIT PETITION No.23860 of 2022

ORDER: (per AAR,J)

      The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner

challenging the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in rejecting

the application of the petitioner for the post of Civil Judge in

Telangana State Judicial Service, as per the Notification

No.282/2021-RC dated 06.05.2022, on the ground of age.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner is aged 22 years and that she has completed Law

degree and wants to appear for the post of Junior Civil Judge as

per the Notification No.282/2021-RC, dated 06.05.2022, but the

respondents are not permitting her on the ground that she does

not have requisite age of having minimum 25 years age.

Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed

the present Writ Petition challenging the G.O.Ms.No.3 dated

06.01.2020.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court

for the State of Telangana appearing on behalf of the respondent

No.2 vehemently opposed the maintainability of the present Writ

Petition and stated that the petitioner has not meet the eligibility

requirement as laid down by the Government in the Telangana

AAR, J W.P.No.23860 of 2022

State Judicial (Service & Conduct) Rules, 2017 (for short 'the

Rules'), which have been amended, wherein the Rule 5 has been

amended.

Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to

the Rule 5 of the Rules, which stipulates the eligibility besides

other criteria, which reads as under:

"Must have attained the age of 25 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years in the case of OC Category and 40 years in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes as on the 1st day of July of the year in which the Notification for selection to the post is made."

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in All India

Judges Association and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and

Others1. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the

Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Anitha and

others v. The State of Telangana and others (Writ Petition

Nos.23658, 23659, 5284 & 5285 of 2019).

A perusal of the above two Judgments show that the said

orders were passed with regard to the requirement of having

minimum practice of 3 years, but do not pertain to the

prescription of minimum age of 25 years. Except stating that

AIR 2002 SC 1752

AAR, J W.P.No.23860 of 2022

petitioner is appearing for the said examination, the learned

counsel for the petitioner has failed to impress upon this Court

as to how the Notification dated 282/2021-RC amending the

Rule 5 of the Rules is arbitrary and unreasonable. Unless and

until the petitioner shows that the Rule 5 of the Rules is

contrary to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the

prescription of minimum age of 25 years as per Rule 5 of the

Rules cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. No

ground has been made out by the petitioner which warrants any

interference by this Court. Admittedly, the Courts or Judges

require some maturity, experience and temperament to

discharge their duties as a Judge and the same can only be

gained by age. The discharge of duties as a Judge requires that

the incumbent has the necessary maturity and experience to

deal with real problems and face the day-to-day challenges and

prescription of minimum age is intended to sub-serve the very

same purpose.

Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any

merit in the present Writ Petition which warrants any

interference by this Court as the amended rule of minimum age

of 25 years cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

AAR, J W.P.No.23860 of 2022

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J

Date :19.05.2022.

___________________________________ MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J PSSK