Point of Law :
prerequisite cannot be prescribed in the Service Rules. -Article 235 of the Constitution of India does bestow the power of control and supervision on the High Court over the District Courts. However, merely because the High Court has the power of control and supervision over the subordinate courts does not deviate from the fact that the Article 141 of the Constitution of India creates a binding effect upon the decision of the Supreme Court. The High Courts are constitutionally duty bound to follow a “direction” issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is clearly unacceptable

ORDER :

RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the imposition of the pre-requisite condition that a candidate appearing for direct recruitment for the post of Junior Civil Judge shall have three years of experience as an Advocate to be eligible for the said post, as prescribed by the Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017 (“the Rules”, for short), also aggrieved by the imposition of the same condition in the Notification dated 08.03.2019, issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court for the State of Telangana, the petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the constitutional validity of both Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, and of the Notification dated 08.03.2019.

2. Since all these writ petitions challenge the same Rule, and the same Notification, since similar arguments have been raised by both the parties, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

3. The facts are being taken from W.P.No.23658 of 2019.

4. According to the petitioners, they have graduated from the Osmania University, and have earned the Degree of L.L.B. in different years. After having completed their legal studies, they were eager to join the judicial service of the State. By notification dated 08.03.2019, the High Court had declared the existence of fifty four vacancies for direct recruitment. However, in the said notification, Clause III prescribes the qualifications. According to Clause III(a), “a person who has been practicing for not less than three(3) years as an Advocate, as on the date of publication of the notification/advertisement in the news papers, shall be eligible to apply for the post of Civil Judge under Direct Recruitment”. Even Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, clearly stipulate that “one, who has been practicing for not less than 3 years as an Advocate as on the date of publication of the advertisement in the news papers shall be eligible for appointment to the category of Civil Judges”. Thus, a pre-requisite condition has been imposed on the candidates desiring to enter the lowest post of the judicial service that they must have three years of practice at the Bar. Since the petitioners do not have the said qualification, and since the petitioners are aggrieved by the said eligibility criteria, they have approached this Court as aforementioned, for challenging both the impugned Rules and the impugned Notification.

5. By order dated 14.03.2019, this Court had permitted the petitioners to appear provisionally in the written examination held on 17.08.2019 and 18.08.2019. However, this Court had also made it amply clear that merely because they pass the examination, they cannot claim any equity in their favour. By order dated 01.10.2019, a provisional selection list has been declared by High Court. However, the final selection list cannot be declared, till these writ petitions are decided by this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently pleaded that the issue whether a pre-requisite of experience at the Bar can be imposed upon a candidate desiring to enter the judicial service or not is no longer res integra, as the said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC 247]. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such a prerequisite cannot be prescribed in the Service Rules. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the High Court and the State Government to amend the Judicial Service Rules and to delete the imposition of such a pre-requisite condition.

7. Secondly, once such a direction has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts are legally bound to implement the direction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules is contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, obviously, it is an unconstitutional provision. Therefore