Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 31152
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SP, J
Thedlapu Dipsikha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petitions | W.P.No.12527 of 2024 | W.P.No.12765 of 2024 | W.P.No.12176 of 2024 | W.P.Nos.12765, 12289 and 11838 of 2024 | W.P.No.11820 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Sri Satish Munuga, Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi
For the Respondents: Sri Harender Pershad
The court upheld the constitutionality of age limits and eligibility criteria for judicial recruitment, affirming that such regulations are policy decisions within the legislative prerogative.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 - Challenge to Rules prescribing age limits and eligibility criteria for Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Petitioners argue that age limits are arbitrary and unconstitutional - Court reaffirms that age limit is a policy decision and does not violate principles established in All India Judges’ Association case. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 18, 32)
(B) Judicial Recruitment - Age Limit - Court held that different age limits for advocates and law graduates are justified and within the prerogative of the employer - Classification based on age is reasonable and serves a legitimate purpose. (Paras 33, 40)
(C) Certificate of Practice - The requirement for a certificate of practice does not violate constitutional rights and is necessary to ensure that candidates are actively practicing law. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of certain rules in the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023, which set age limits and required a certificate of practice for candidates applying for the Civil Judge position. Petitioners argued that these rules unfairly disqualified them based on age and local practice requirements.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the age limits and the requirement for a certificate of practice, stating that these provisions are within the legislative prerogative and do not violate constitutional principles.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the constitutionality of age limits for candidates and the requirement of a certificate of practice from the Bar Association.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the age limits and the certificate of practice requirement are justified as policy decisions aimed at ensuring qualified candidates in judicial service, reaffirming that such regulations do not infringe upon constitutional rights.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to age limit rules. (Para 12527) |
COMMON 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 ,
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 peti
