9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Effect of seven years' experience as an Advocate for eligibility as a District Judge under Article 233(2). 2. Impact of the Shetty Commission's recommendations and the Supreme Court's acceptance in the All India Judges' case. 3. Validity and impact of the amendment to the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961, prescribing age limits on the rights of candidates who applied before the amendment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Effect of Seven Years' Experience as an Advocate for Eligibility as a District Judge under Article 233(2): The court examined whether the prescription of age limits in the amended rules was ultra vires Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which requires seven years of experience as an Advocate for eligibility. The court held that the founding fathers intended to incorporate the requirement of practice and did not preclude the appropriate authority from prescribing additional qualifications that do not conflict with the constitutional mandate. The prescription of good character and age limits were found to be valid and not incompatible with Article 233(2). 2. Impact of the Shetty Commission's Recommendations and the Supreme Court's Acceptance in the All India Judges' Case: The court considered whether the acceptance of the Shetty Commission's recommendations by the Supreme Court amounted to a declaration of law that automatically amended the statutory rules. It was held that the Supreme Court's judgment did not intend to bring the age limits into force without an amendment to the rules. The court noted that the High Court and the State Government did not perceive the judgment as amending the rules and proceeded to amend the rules prospectively. 3. Validity and Impact of the Amendment to the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961, Prescribing Age Limits on the Rights of Candidates Who Applied Before the Amendment: The court analyzed whether the amendment to the rules, prescribing minimum and maximum age limits, could affect the rights of candidates who had applied and passed the written test before the amendment. It was held that the amendment was prospective and could not impair the rights of candidates who had already applied under the previous rules. The court relied on established legal principles that once a recruitment process has commenced, the rules of the game cannot be altered to the detriment of the applicants. The court declared the exclusion of the petitioners based on the amended age limits as illegal and directed the High Court and the State of Kerala to consider the petitioners' claims in accordance with the rules as they existed at the time of the notification. Conclusion: The amendment to the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961, prescribing age limits was held to be prospective and not applicable to candidates who had applied before the amendment. The court directed the High Court and the State of Kerala to consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment as District Judges based on the rules in force at the time of the notification. The judgment emphasized the principle that the rules governing a recruitment process cannot be changed midstream to the detriment of applicants who have already applied.
|
