P. Kalyani vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2657 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                    AND

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


              WRIT PETITION No.25406 of 2023


ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


      Mr. Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

      Mr.     Kowturu      Pavan        Kumar,          learned     Standing

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.


      2.      In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has

prayed for the following relief:


                    "For   the     reasons     stated    in   the
              accompanying       Affidavit,   It   is   therefore
              prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
              pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction,
              more particularly one in the nature of Writ
              of Mandamus, declaring the action of the
              respondents in passing order vide R.O.C
              No. 123/2023-RC dated 30.08.2023, where
              in the petitioner candidature for JCJ 2023
              Mains Examination has been rejected by
              the respondents saying "candidature of
              applicants at SI. Nos 1 to 6 are rejected, as
                                    ::2::


           they have not acquired the law degree
           within     3    years   prior   to        the   date    of
           recruitment notification" despite she has
           completed       her     LLB     degree          and    got
           provisional certificate on 28.02.2020 and
           Original degree on 13.08.2020 and enrolled
           on    19.11.2020         is     illegal         arbitrary
           unconstitutional          unreasonable                 and
           violation of Art.14, Art. 16, Art.19(1)(g) and
           Art.21     of    Constitution        of     India      and
           Contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
           Judgment in All India Judges' Association
           and others vs. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC
           247] and R. Anitha and Others v. State of
           Telangana and Others [(2019) 6 ALD 625
           (DB)]; consequently direct the respondents
           to allow the petitioner to participate in the
           on going Junior Civil Judge recruitment
           Notification       No.123/2023-RC                   Dated
           01.02.2023 including the JCJ-2023 Mains
           Written exam scheduled to be conducted
           on 30.09.2023 and pass such other order
           or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
           fit and proper in the circumstances of the
           case and in the interest of justice and
           equity."



     3.    Facts

giving rise to filing of this petition briefly

stated are that High Court of Telangana has issued a

notification dated 01.02.2023 for recruitment of eight (08) ::3::

posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) under direct

recruitment and two (02) posts by way of transfer. The

petitioner who has completed her LLB final semester

examination in the month of November, 2019 applied on

27.02.2023 in pursuance of the aforesaid recruitment

notification. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the

preliminary examination.

4. The High Court of Telangana has issued a

notification dated 15.05.2023, in which the petitioner has

been declared successful to appear in the written

examination. However, the application submitted by the

petitioner was rejected by a notification dated 30.08.2023.

The relevant extract of the notification reads as under:

"candidature of applicants at SI. Nos 1 to 6 are rejected, as they have not acquired the law degree within 3 years prior to the date of recruitment notification."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the aforesaid rejection of the notification dated 30.08.2023

is contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ::4::

All India Judges' Association v. Union of India 1. It is

further submitted that writ petition filed by the similarly

situated candidates was entertained by a Division Bench of

this Court last year and an interim order was granted.

6. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the notification contains a

stipulation that the candidate must have acquired the law

degree within 3 years prior to the date of recruitment

notification. It is evident from the averment made in

paragraph 3 of the petition itself that petitioner has

acquired law degree in the month of November, 2019. The

period of three years has completed in November, 2022.

Thus, the petitioner has not acquired the law degree within

a period of three years prior to the date of notification

dated 01.02.2023.

8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not

challenged the validity of the aforesaid requirement in the

1 (2002) 4 SCC 247 ::5::

instant writ petition. So far as contention that the

aforesaid condition is in contravention of the law laid down

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges'

Association (supra) is concerned, as far as it would say

that in the aforesaid decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court was

dealing with the requirement of three years of practice at

the Bar and not with the requirement of having acquired

the law decree within three years prior to date of

notification. Therefore, the aforesaid decision has no

application to the fact situation of the case.

9. So far as submission that similarly situated

persons have been granted relief by a Division Bench of

this Court is concerned, we have perused the order dated

02.06.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.24079 of 2022. From the perusal of the aforesaid

order, it is evident that the validity of Rule 5(2)(A) I, II and

III of the Telangana State Judicial Service and Cadre Rules,

2017 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.3 Law (LA and J-SPL.B)

Department dated 06.01.2020 and the consequential

notification No.282/2021 RC dated 06.05.2022 were ::6::

challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. In the instant

petition as stated supra, the petitioner has not challenged

the condition contained in the recruitment notification

dated 30.08.2023 of having acquired the law decree within

a period of three years prior to the date of recruitment

notification. The petitioner therefore is not entitled to the

relief as sought for by her in the writ petition.

10. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is

hereby dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

stand closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 23.09.2023 KL