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 which is declared on 12/08/2021 for the District Judge post” it was replied that petitioner was not having continuous practice for seven years during the period from 21.10.2017 to 21.10.2020 and therefore, not qualified in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401. Challenging the said reply given to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, though petitioner joined Aurora’s Legal Science Institute, Nalgonda, as Assistant Professor in law, he is having seven years of practice as an Advocate, and since the said institute was not having the requisite permissions, no classes were conducted by him and later, he resigned the post of Assistant Professor in law. He submits that petitioner was on rolls of the said institute only from 20.05.2017 to 23.09.2017. He further submits that as petitioner was involved in teaching law only, even assuming that it was an employment during that period, the said period cannot be excluded towards computation of experience as a Lawyer as he was supposed to undertake the job of teaching law students only and as per Rule 3 of the Advocates (Right to take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979, (for short ‘Rules, 1979’) a Lawyer is entitled to take up teaching of law and therefore, acceptance of assignment as Assistant Professor cannot be a bar to appear in the examination for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and rejection of his application by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is clearly erroneous.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 49 (a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’) vests power in the Central Government to make rules and in exercise of the said power, the Central Government made Rules, 1979. He submits that Rule 3 of the Rules, 1979, authorized a practicing Lawyer to take up teaching in law. Therefore, the assignment of petitioner as Assistant Professor in law is in accordance with the Rules, 1979 and thus, the period spent by him as Assistant Professor in law should also be computed towards experience as an Advocate to compete to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).

5. Per contra, learned standing counsel submits that Article 233 of the Constitution of India, 1949, requires an Advocate to put in seven years of experience till the date of notification as eligibility criteria and does not recognize any services rendered, including the service involved in teaching law, towards computation of experience as a Lawyer. Further, in the seven years preceding the date of notification, if a person was employed by any law college to take up the assignment of teaching, that period has to be excluded towards computation of experie