Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
A. Nirmal Singh Heera - Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by its Chairman and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.24876 of 2018 and WMP (MD) Nos.22565 to 22567 of 2018
Decided On : 12-07-2024
Judicial - Civil Judge Appointment - Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 - The court upheld the constitutional validity of the rules governing qualifications for Civil Judge appointments, emphasizing the legitimacy of differentiating between classes of candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for the Civil Judge position, claiming the qualification requirements in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules were unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the rejection of the petitioner's application, affirming that the qualifications set forth in the notification were valid and that the petitioner did not meet the necessary criteria.
Issues: Whether the qualifications prescribed in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules for Civil Judge appointments are unconstitutional and whether the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the differentiation between classes of candidates for the Civil Judge position is permissible and does not violate constitutional provisions, as long as there is no discrimination within a class.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
ORDER :
(S.M. Subramaniam, J.) :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring Sl.No.9 of the Schedule in Rule 5 of TN State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment Rules), 2007 relating to method of appointment, Qualification and Age and consequential notification of TNPSC dated 24.11.2018 insofar as it prescribes that the applicant must be practicing as an Advocate or Pleader in any Court on the date of notification as illegal and unconstitutional and direct the respondents herein to declare results of petitioner's oral test and further direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service pursuant to the TNPSC notification no.08/2018 dated 09.04.2018.
[Prayer amended vide order dated 13.02.2019 made in WMP.No.4801 of 2019 in W.P.No.24876 of 2018 by VBDJ and VPNJ.]
The writ petition has been instituted originally challenging the non-selection of the petitioner to the post of Civil Judge. The prayer in the writ petition was subsequently amended by the petitioner to declare Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 relating to method of appointment, Qualification and Age and consequential notification of TNPSC dated 24.11.2018 as unconstitutional.
2. The petitioner submitted an application to participate in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, pursuant to the recruitment Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 09.04.2018. The essential qualification as on 09.04.2018 prescribed in the notification reads as under:
The Applicants should possess the following:
| I. | For practising Advocates/Pleaders and Assistant Public Prosecutors | (i) Must possess a Degree in Law of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a State Act or an Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission, or any other equivalent qualification and enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or in the Bar Council of any other State in India. And (ii)(a) Must be practising as an Advocate or Pleader in any Court on the date of Notification for recruitment to the post and must have so practised for a period of not less than 3 years on such date. Or (b) Must be an Assistant Public Prosecutor having not less than 3 years of experience as an Advocate and/or Assistant Public Prosecutor. |
| II. | For Fresh Law Graduates | (i) Must be a fresh Law Graduate possessing a degree in Law from a recognized University as mentioned in ClauseI (i) above, (ii) Must be eligible to be enrolled as an advocate. (iii) Must have secured an overall percentage of marks in acquiring the Bachelor's Degree of Law as below:- (a) 45% Marks in case of Reserved Categories (i.e.) SCs, SC(A)s, STs, MBCs/DCs, BCs(OBCMs) and BCMs). (b) 50% Marks in case of Open Category (i.e. Others). (iv) Must have obtained the Bachelor's Degree of Law within a period of three years prior to the date of notification |
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner enrolled himself as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Thus, he submitted his application under the category of Practicing Advocate. Therefore, he must possess the practicing experience for a period of not less than 3 years as on the date of notification. Since the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification as contemplated under the Notification, his candidature was rejected.
4. We do not find any infirmity in respect of the rejection of application made by the Authorities. The candidates submitting application accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the Notification cannot turn around and challenge the same after completion of the process of selection.
5. As far as the
Point of law: Article uses the word “sha ”, which obviously gives a mandatory colour to the said Article. There fore, once the law has been declared by the Apex Court, it becomes the law of the land
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government had already increased the maximum upper age limit by two years and the concession granted by the Supreme Court in a similar cas....
The absence of a legal provision for revaluation of answer sheets in recruitment processes limits the court's ability to intervene in evaluation disputes.
The court upheld the constitutionality of age limits in judicial recruitment rules, affirming that such regulations fall within the policy-making authority of the rule makers.
The prescription of the age of 35 years as eligibility for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment was held to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution of India....
The eligibility criteria for promotional posts must prioritize qualifications and experience over the current position held, as per legislative provisions, allowing candidates to apply irrespective o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
