The central legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility criteria for appointment as a District Judge, requiring an Advocate to be in practice for not less than 7 years, must be strictly adhered to, and cannot be waived based on grounds of hardship.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard on admission.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that rejection of petitioner's candidature in the matter of recruitment to Higher Judicial Services on the ground that petitioner has not been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on the last date of submission of application form as envisaged in Rule 33 (iii) of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2010") is illegal and based on misconstruction of the relevant Rule. It is argued that the petitioner was registered with the Bar Council of Rajasthan w.e.f. 27.08.2005. Pursuant to advertisement issued for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2013, the petitioner applied for the same as she was eligible. She was selected and appointed in service vide order dated 21.05.2015 and was also sent for training as required under the Rules, however, her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2017. As the petitioner could not succeed, she again applied for resumption of her license which was resumed vide notice dated 28.05.2019 w.e.f. 28.05.2019. Pursuant to advertisement dated 05.01.2021 for recruitment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2020, the petitioner again applied but this time her candidature has been rejected by holding her ineligible. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was eligible but now she has been held ineligible on a technical ground that she does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010. According to him, the petitioner had earlier practiced for more than 7 years as an Advocate and therefore, the requirement of the Rules is substantially complied with and subsequently her license was suspended as she was in Judicial Service, resumption of license in the year 2019 continues her practice as an Advocate.

3. It is not in dispute that while the petitioner was practicing as an Advocate, she was selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide order dated 04.07.2015. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's license/enrollment as an Advocate was suspended. However, later on, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2017. Though, the petitioner took recourse to the remedy available under the law by filing a writ petition, her writ petition was dismissed on 09.05.2018 and SLP also came to be dismissed against the said order. Again when an advertisement was issued on 22.09.2018 for appointment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2018 under the Rules of 2010, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she was not eligible having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010 against which a petition was preferred, which was, however, dismissed as having rendered infructuous vide common order dated 19.12.2019.

4. When fresh advertisement was issued on 05.01.2021 for recruitment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2020, the petitioner again applied but her candidature has been rejected on the same ground that the petitioner has not been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years on the last date of submission of application form. This rejection is for the reason that the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010 have not been fulfilled. Relevant Rule 33(iii) of the Rules of 2010 provides as below:-

"33. Eligibility for direct recruitment.-For the purpose of direct recruitment under sub-rule (3) of Rule 31, applications shall be invited by the Court from those Advocates, who fulfill the following conditions of eligibility:-

(i) xxxxxx

(ii) xxxxxx

(iii) must have been an Advocate for a period of not less than seven years on the last date fixed for receipt of applications."

5. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that in order to be eligible, mandatory requirement of having been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years on the last date of submission of the applicat