BHANDARI, J.

By this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 2nd September, 2015, whereby candidature of the petitioner for direct recruitment in the District Judge Cadre was rejected in reference to Rule 33(iii) of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended) (in short “Rules of 2010”).

It is stated that an advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting applications for the post in District Judge Cadre. The petitioner applied for the post. He was allowed to appear in written examination. The result of the written examination was declared on 20.08.2015 and petitioner qualified for interview. The respondents thereafter passed impugned order rejecting candidature of the petitioner. It is precisely on the ground that petitioner has not been an Advocate preceding seven years on the last date of submission of application form. It is by giving erroneous interpretation to Rule 33

(iii) of the Rules of 2010. Para 7.2 of the application form requiring preceding seven years as an advocate was contrary to Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010. One is not required to be an Advocate or Pleader preceding seven years from the last date of submission of the application form. What has been provided under Rule 33(iii) is that one must have been an Advocate for a period of seven years. Para No.7.2 of the application form was thus contrary to the Rules of 2010.

The petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1999 and continued till joining of judicial services on 10.03.2008. The petitioner has been an Advocate for seven years by that time itself. The petitioner resigned from judicial services on 21.04.2010 and enrolled again as an Advocate on 22.04.2010 thus he is eligible for appointment in the District Judge cadre. The period of two years as Judicial Officer can also be counted towards required seven years period as an Advocate if it is to be preceding seven years on the last date of submission of application form. It is because petitioner had discharged judicial work during that period which adds to the required experience.

The petitioner has made alternative argument also. He submits that if period of Judicial Service cannot be taken as an Advocate or Pleader, then petitioner has been an Advocate for a period of more than seven years. The period cannot be taken preceding seven years on the last date of submission of application, rather, it can be any seven years. To support the argument, he has referred the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 1961 SC 816. In the said case, similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was held that seven years need not to be preceding seven years on the last date of submission of application but can be any seven years. The prayer is accordingly made to cover his case by the judgment in the case of Rameshwar Dayal (supra). A further reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 771 has been given.

The petitioner, in person, submits that judgment in the case of Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik & Ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 277 is not on the issue raised herein. The respondents have referred the judgment aforesaid in ignorance of question framed by Apex Court therein. Whether required period as an Advocate should be preceding seven years on the last date of submission of application was not before the Hon'ble Apex Court. If dealt with, it should be taken as an observation or the opinion thus obiter and not a binding precedence. The reply submitted by the respondents largely refers the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Deepak Aggarwal (supra) but it is not applicable to the case in hand. The petitioner may be held eligible and directed to be called for interview by quashing the impugned order, qua the petitioner.

Shri A.K. Sharma, Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.K. Sharma appearing fo