V.S.SIRPURKAR, R.M.LODHA
Mallaraddi H. Itagi – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Karnataka – Respondent
Judgment :
Application for impleadment/intervention is allowed.
2. We need not go in details of the matter. These are appeals against the High Court to the claim of the appellants herein nine in number who applied for the posts of direct District Judges and were not considered for the posts on the ground that they were holding the Government posts and they had also not put in seven years of practice as an Advocate. The appellants challenged this and the High Court has repelled the challenge taking the view that the appellants were the Government servants holding regular posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors etc. and they were on the regular panel on the Government and were also members of the regular cadre.
The High Court formulated two points. They are as under :
"1. Whether the Petitioners 1 to 9 were practising advocates on the date of the submission of their applications to the first Respondent and as such were eligible to be considered for appointment as District Judges in terms of the qualification prescribed under Schedule given to Rule 2 of the Rules?
2. Whether the qualification prescribed in Schedule given to Rule 2 of the Rules that an applicant
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.