IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER: (per Hon’ble SP, J)

In these batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Rule 2(k) and Rule (5.2)(A) of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 (hereinafter called ‘Rules of 2023’) which prescribes minimum and maximum age limit because of which few petitioners became ineligible for submission of their candidature for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). In addition, the petitioners have also called in question the provisions of the Rule which permits only Advocates practising in Telangana to participate in the selection process. The requirement of obtaining certificate of practice from the concerned Bar Association is another reason of grievance of the petitioners.

Contention of Petitioners:

W.P.No.12527 of 2024:-

2. The petitioners of this case are aggrieved by Rules 2 (k) and (5.2)(A) of Rules of 2023 and Clause 6 (A) of Notification dated 10.04.2024, on the ground that since they have crossed age of 26 years and the Rule prescribes the maximum age of 26 years, the Rules are ultra vires and liable to be struck down.

3. To elaborate, Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Apex Court in clear terms opined about the need of meritorious candidates in the Judicial Services and laid down the law with the clear finding that in case of any modification in the judgment of the Apex Court is required, necessary directions must be obtained from the Supreme Court only. The High Court for the State of Telangana in R. Anitha vs. State of Telangana and others, 2019 SCC Online TS 2075 followed the said judgment in All India Judges’ Association (supra) and interfered with the rules which were contrary to the principles/law laid down in the case of All India Judges’ Association (supra). Applying the same principles, offending conditions of the Rules which run contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in addition to the above offending portion of Rules of 2023, namely Rule (5.2)(A), the petitioners are also questioning Rule 2(k), which was not subject matter of challenge in Bodugula Brahmaiah and others vs. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC Online TS 4105. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court opined that in the teeth of Rule 2(k), the ‘High Court’ ‘means and includes’ the High Court for the State of Telangana and other Courts which are working under the supervision of the High Court for the State of Telangana. It is submitted that the phrase ‘means and includes’ is wide enough to include other High Courts and their Subordinate Courts also.

5. By placing heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 11 SCC 401, it is submitted that any Rule which prescribes 100% reservation for local candidates will be unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

6. The judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18002 of 2023 is passed without considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra) which makes it per incuriam. It is submitted that there is no justification in prescribing maximum age of 26 years and said Rule is arbitrary and may be set aside. As an interim measure the petitioners may be permitted to participate provisionally in impugned selection process. The last date of submission of candidature is 17.05.2024.

7. As canvassed, the petitioners, who have either completed more than 26 years of age or are of less than 23 years, the minimum and maximum age limit prescribed in the Rules of 2023 is coming in their way. By adopting argument of Sri Anup Koushik Karawadi, the learned counsel for the petitioners of W.P.No.12765 of 2024, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such impediment of age is bad in law. In addition, it is