JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a candidate who aspired to be a District and Sessions Judge, has filed this Appeal challenging the validity of the Judgment and Order dated 17th July, 2012 delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 34683 of 2011.

3. The grievance which had been ventilated by the appellant before the High Court was that he had not been appointed to the post of District and Sessions Judge. In pursuance of an advertisement, dated 19th August, 2010 published by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh inviting applications for appointment to 18 (eighteen) posts of District and Sessions Judges (Entry Level) in the A.P. State Judicial Service, the appellant had applied for the said post. He had taken the written examination and also appeared in the oral interview and he had found his name in the select list. Though the appellant found his name in the select list, he was not appointed to the post in question for the reason that he had not completed 35 years of age at the time when he had submitted his application or at the time when the advertisement had been issued and also for the reason that he had not completed seven years standing at the bar as an advocate.

4. As the appellant had not been appointed to the post in question, he had filed the aforestated Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. While deciding the Writ Petition, the High Court had come to a conclusion that though the appellant had completed seven years as an advocate, he had not attained the age of 35 years at the time when the advertisement had been issued i.e. on 19th August, 2010 and therefore, the appellant was not eligible to be appointed to the post in question. Thus, on one count the petition filed by the appellant had failed and therefore, by filing this appeal the appellant has approached this Court contending that it was not necessary for him to have completed 35 years of age for being appointed to the post of the District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level) in the A.P. Judicial Service.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted that it was not necessary for the appellant to have completed the age of 35 years for being appointed to the post in question as there is no provision in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) to the effect that the candidate, to be appointed to the post in question, must have completed 35 years of age. He had submitted that the High Court committed an error by coming to the conclusion that simply because the Justice Shetty Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) had recommended that a person who has completed 35 years of age should only be appointed as a District and Sessions Judge, the High Court, on an erroneous ground decided not to appoint the appellant to the post in question. According to him the Commission had merely made certain suggestions with regard to appointment of deserving candidates in judiciary so as to see that the judiciary becomes stronger. In an effort to enhance the standard of judges and judiciary, the Commission headed by Justice Shetty had been appointed and certain recommendations had been made by the said Commission. The said recommendations, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, were merely recommendatory in nature and by no stretch of imagination, the said suggestions could have been accepted unless they were supported by relevant recruitment rules. Ultimately he had also submitted that if the recruitment rules are at variance with the recommendations of the Commission, the recruitment rules are to be followed and not the recommendations made by the Commission.

6. The learned counsel had relied upon certain judgments so as to buttress his submissions. He had relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Syed T.A. Naqshbandi & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 592. He had drawn our attenti