2001 (7) TMI 1282 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969.
2. Eligibility of a full-time salaried Deputy District Attorney for consideration under Article 233 of the Constitution.
3. Alleged irregularities in the selection process, including relaxation of minimum marks.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969:
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6469 of 1998 challenged the validity of Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii), arguing that they were ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as they made only those advocates eligible for consideration who had practiced in the Rajasthan High Court or subordinate courts for at least seven years. The Supreme Court examined the rationale behind these rules, which was to ensure that candidates had knowledge of local laws and regional languages. However, the Court found this reasoning fallacious, noting that for the post of Munsif in the Rajasthan Judicial Service, there was no such requirement. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in J.Pandurangarao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, which held that such classifications must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court concluded that the rules did not meet this test and were thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) were struck down.

2. Eligibility of a Full-Time Salaried Deputy District Attorney:
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999 contended that his period as a full-time salaried Deputy District Attorney should be considered as practice as an advocate. The High Court had rejected his candidature on the grounds that he was in the service of the State of Haryana and did not practice in any court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in not calling him for an interview, as he was engaged to act and plead on behalf of the Government of Haryana in a court of law. However, the Court refused to grant any relief, as the selected candidates had already joined their duties, and the appellant was yet to be interviewed. The Court directed that in future, applications of candidates like him should be processed for direct recruitment in light of these observations.

3. Alleged Irregularities in the Selection Process:
The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1999 challenged the selection process, alleging that two candidates were selected by relaxing the minimum marks, which was beyond the competence of the Selection Committee. The High Court dismissed this writ application, finding it devoid of any substance. The Supreme Court upheld this decision but expunged the severe strictures passed against the appellant and set aside the order awarding costs.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 6469 of 1998, setting aside the High Court's judgment and striking down Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court made the judgment prospective, ensuring that past appointments under these rules would not be affected. The Court also allowed Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1999 by expunging the remarks against the appellant and setting aside the costs. Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999 was dismissed, but the Court observed that future applications of similar candidates should be processed.