Back
P. NAVEEN RAO, NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M. Kamalakar S/o Late M. C. Manik Rao – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Telangana, Rep. by Registrar General, Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel Sri S.Sharat Kumar for petitioner, learned standing counsel for High Court for the State of Telangana Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondent no. 3.
2. On 21.10.2020 notification No. 59/2020-RC was issued calling for applications for recruitment to the posts of District Judge (Entry Level). The total number of posts notified were 09, out of which 02 were meant for Scheduled Castes category, whereunder, 01 post was reserved for Women category. Petitioner applied to the said post and participated in the recruitment process. In the results announced by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the name of petitioner was not found in the selection list. Therefore, petitioner applied for information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifying reasons as to why he was not selected in the qualifying examination. On 22.11.2021 information was furnished to the petitioner by the State Public Information Officer/Registrar Judicial-I/Registrar (Recruitment). With reference to the query raised i.e. “what is the reason for not declaring my name in final result w
An advocate ceases to practice when engaged in full-time employment, rendering them ineligible for judicial recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of continuous practice as an advocate immediately preceding the date of the application for appointment as a District Judge.
The requirement of continuous practice for seven years under Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules aligns with Article 233(2) of the Constitution, validating the rule's constitutiona....
Point of law : Article 309 of the Constitution of India deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. The Article 309 provides the competence for the G....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of 'continuously practicing advocate for not less than 7 years' for selection to the Delhi Higher Judicial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Advocates Act, 1961 recognizes only advocates as legal practitioners, and the 25% advocate's recruitment quota for District Judges is rese....
The eligibility criterion of 'having been continuously practicing as an Advocate for not less than seven years' as per Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules does not require an inquiry into the specific functi....
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
