[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7795/2015

Atma Ram Meghwal Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

Date of order

::

24^th July 2015

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Mr. MA Siddiqui, for the petitioner.

<><><>

BY THE COURT:

(PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. VYAS)

The instant writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner to quash the order dated 8^th July, 2015 whereby

the candidature of the petitioner was rejected to appear in

the examination of District Judge Cadre in pursuance of

advertisement dated 26.4.2015 and prayed that the

respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner

eligible for appearing in the examination, which is going to

be conducted by the respondents on 25.7.2015.

As per facts of the case, an advertisement was issued

by the Rajasthan High Court on 26.4.2015 whereby online

applications were inviting from eligible candidates for

recruitment on 44 posts in the District Judge Cadre in

accordance with the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2010).

[2]

The contention of the petitioner is that he being

eligible applied for the post and submitted the required

documents alongwitht the application form. It is pleaded in

the writ petition that the District Judge, Churu issued

character, experience and fitness certificate in favour of

petitioner on 18.5.2015 and certified that petitioner is

having experience of practice from 1999 to 15^th Nov., 2014.

The said certificate was annexed by him with the online

application form.

As per facts before issuance of advertisement dated

26.4.2015 the petitioner joined on the post of Chief Law

Assistant on 18.11.2014 in the Western Railway and railway

authorities issued no objection certificate in favour of the

petitioner to appear in the aforesaid examination.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner was waiting for admission card to appear in the

examination but vide office notice dated 8.7.2015 the

respondent rejected the application form of the petitioner

on the ground that he is in service other than prosecution

service.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

argued that the ground of rejection is totally unfounded

because in Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010 there is no

provision to treat petitioner ineligible or to treat only those

candidates eligible who were in service of prosecution for

appearing in the examination of District Judge Cadre for

[3]

appearing in the examination of District Judge cadre,

therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is

totally unconstitutional. It is also argued that in the rules it

is nowhere provided that a candidate in-service other than

prosecution service is not entitled to appear in the said

examination, therefore, on this ground the rejection of the

petitioner’s candidature is contrary to law. Counsel for the

petitioner submits that in the year 2011 the petitioner

appeared in the District Judge Cadre examination but now

his application has been rejected on the ground that he is

in-service other than prosecution, therefore, the reasons for

not treating the petitioner eligible for the post of District

Judge is against the principles of natural justice, therefore,

the notice of rejection may kindly be quashed and

respondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to

appear in the said examination.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it

emerges from the facts that petitioner is substantively

working as Chief Law Assistant in Western Railway and he

joined the said services on 18.11.2014 after selection.

Meaning thereby, on the date of issuance of advertisement

itself the petitioner was not practicing lawyer. We have

perused the rule 33 of the Rules of 2