JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. By the order dated 15.03.2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had admitted the Letters Patent Appeal and directed to list the matter for final hearing on 10.04.2023. By the order dated 13.04.2023, the captioned writ petition was ordered to be heard with the letters patent appeal.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the appellant does not press the civil application since this Court has taken up the main matter today. Hence, the Civil application for direction stands disposed of as not pressed.

3. Since an urgency is pleaded in the matter, we have heard the learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the appellant as well as learned advocate Mrs.Krishna G. Rawal, appearing the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 5579 of 2023 and learned Senior Advocate Mr.G.M. Joshi, with learned advocate Ms.Trusha Patel, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and the matter is finally decided by this judgment and order. The appellant is serving as a Civil Judge in Rajasthan, whereas the writ petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 5579 of 2023 is serving as Civil Judge in Bihar.

4. Since the issue is common, the facts are incorporated from Special Civil Application No. 9461 of 2022, which has been dismissed by the order dated 03.06.2022 by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has filed the captioned appeal.

5. The facts, which are recorded in the writ petition as well as recorded by the learned Single Judge are as under:

5.1 Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1 on 01.02.2022 for recruitment of 219 posts of the Civil Judge. The appellant, who is serving as a Civil Judge at Rajasthan applied for the same on 04.02.2022, however it is the case of the appellant that such application was not accepted through online. She also sought permission from the Rajasthan High Court to allow her to apply to the advertisement for the post of Civil Judge issued by the respondent No. 1 i.e. High Court of Gujarat and subsequently, it was also granted.

5.2 Since her online application was not accepted, she immediately made a detailed representation to the respondent No. 1 on 07.03.2022 requesting the respondent No. 1 - authority to consider her case for appointment to the post of Civil Judge and permit her to fill the application form by physical mode. In the meantime, the appellant received permission from the competent authority i.e. from Rajasthan High Court.

5.3 The preliminary examination was scheduled on 15.05.2022, as per the clause of the advertisement.

5.4 Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 1, the appellant filed the captioned writ petition with a prayer to consider her case for the appointment to the post of Civil Judge and to declare and hold the instruction contain at Item No. 10(7) (at Annexure-A), so far as it excludes the candidature of the candidates working in the Courts, which are not subordinate to the High Court of Gujarat for recruitment to the post of Civil Judges.

5.5 The learned Single Judge by the order dated 03.06.2022 did not entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same which has given rise to the present appeal.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the entire action of the respondent No. 1 is de horse the recruitment Rules and the paragraph No. 10(7) of the advertisement, which is clarificatory in nature, is issued pursuant to the recruitment Rules being Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (the Rules), is illegal and against such rules.

6.1 Learned advocate Mr.Vyas, has placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules and has emphasized on the expression “must have worked in the Courts” in support of his submissions. He has submitted that since the appellant, who is working as a Civil Judge in Rajasthan, will fall in the category of the expression “must have worked in the Courts.”

6.2 It is submit