Eligibility for judicial service requires continuous practice as an advocate post-application, per Supreme Court's rulings. Selection processes must adhere to stated rules and applicable reservations without discrimination via compartmentalization.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri D. S. Mishra learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramanand Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Mishra learned counsel for the High Court and Sri T.P. Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satya Prakash and Sri Raj Kumar Yadav learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 10.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the revised result dated 01.10.2020-of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Recruitment Examination 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned examination’). Also, challenge has been laid to Notification dated 24.3.2021 issued by the High Court (on administrative side) under Rule 22(1) of the UTTAR PRADESH HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES , 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) insofar as it pertains to appointment of Sri Shashwata Pandey, Sri Pinku Kumar, Sri Utkarsh Yadav, Sri Awanish Kumar, Sri Prakash Chand Rana, Sri Sharad Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ajay Kumar, Smt. Sandeep Chauhan and Ms. Hemlata Tyagi as Additional District & Sessions Judges pursuant to the impugned examination. Since the writ petition filed by Sri Rahul Singh/respondent No.12 stands dismissed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner claims appointment in his place. Further, direction has been sought to include the petitioner in the revised result dated 01.10.2020 and to grant appointment to him as Additional District & Sessions Judge, in the State of U.P., pursuant to the impugned examination.

3. Pleadings had been exchanged earlier. Accordingly, the matter was proceeded. During hearing, learned counsel for the High Court produced the original record and consequently also filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit on 23.11.2023. Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit thereto was filed by the petitioner on 28.11.2023. Those have also been taken on record.

4. On 10.5.2018, the High Court advertised 37 vacancies in Higher Judicial Service being 21 vacancies in Unreserved/Open Category, 07 in the Scheduled Caste category and 09 in the Other Backward Class category. Applications were invited “from Advocates having not less than 7 years standing as on the last date fixed for the submission of application forms”. That date was 14.6.2018. As to the age limit, it was stipulated, the candidate must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years, on 01.01.2019. At the same time, age relaxation of three years was granted to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class.

5. As to horizontal reservation for women, in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, the advertisement contemplated 20% horizontal reservation for women belonging to the State of U.P. only, in the following terms:

“20% horizontal reservation for women belonging to State of U.P. only.”

Also, Rule 7 of the Rules reads as below: -

“7. Reservation of posts for Scheduled Caste, etc.- Reservation to posts in the servic