The surrender of Certificate of Practice and suspension of practice indicated the petitioners' non-practising status, and the qualification requiring seven years of practice as an advocate for appointment as District Judges was not unreasonable or discriminatory.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS in this batch of nine writ petitions (in Writ Petition Nos. 47330 to 47338 of 2001) are either Assistant Public Prosecutors or Senior assistant Public Prosecutors or Public Prosecutors who are in the services of the second respondent-State. The petitioners in the tenth writ petition (in Writ Petition No. 47339 of 2001) claims to be an association of Law Officers formed by the Public Prosecutors and other Law officers in the State of Karnataka.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in these petitions are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Committee constituted by the first respondent-High Court for the purpose of considering the case of the applicants for appointment to the post of District Judges, wherein the Committee has taken a decision that the Assistant Public Prosecutor/senior Assistant Public Prosecutor/ public Prosecutor are not eligible to be considered for recruitment to the post of District Judges.

( 3 ) THOUGH these petitions are listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed off by this order.

( 4 ) FACTS in brief, which are not in serious dispute, may be stated as hereunder;

( 5 ) THE first respondent by means of its notification dated 11 th October, 2000 called for applications for appointment of 14 practising Advocates by direct recruitment as District Judges. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioners 1 to 9 had applied for the post of District Judges, and thereafter on the communication issued by the first respondent directing them to appear for the written examination all of them had appeared for the written examination held on 10th June, 2001. On 3rd December, 2001, the first respondent put up a memo, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C to the writ petitions, on the notice Board declaring the results of the written examination and indicating the candidates who are eligible to appear for viva voce to be conducted from 3rd January, 2002. In Annexure-C, however, it was also notified that the petitioners 1 to 9 are not eligible to be called for viva voce, on the ground that they are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors/senior Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors and they were not practising Advocates as on the last date fixed for submission of their applications. Thereafter, by means of another communication dated 18th December, 2001 the petitioners 1 to 9 were informed that they were not eligible to be considered for recruitment to the post of district Judges. Aggrieved by the said decision of the first respondent, those writ petitions have been filed. In these petitions, this Court on 28th December, 2001 made an interim order directing the first respondent to permit the petitioners 1 to 9 to participate in the viva voce and also further directed the first respondent not to announce the result of the petitioners 1 to 9 without the leave of the Court. In terms of the interim, order granted by this Court, the petitioners 1 to 9 were permitted to appear for the viva voce commencing from 3rd January, 2002.

( 6 ) DURING the pendency of these petitions, the petitioners filed an application seeking for amendment of the petitions praying for a declaration that the communication dated 18th December, 2001 issued to the petitioners 1 to 9, as illegal and unconstitutional. The statement of objections were filed on behalf of the first respondent both to the main petition and also for the additional grounds raised by the petitioners.

( 7 ) SRI R. N. Narasimhamurthy, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Sri Harish for AAEEN Associates, made two submissions firstly, he submitted that the view taken by the first respondent that the, Assistant Public Prosecutors, Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are not practising Advocates is erroneous in law. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioners 1 t