Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs . Registrar General, Rhc & Anr. on 22 July, 2015
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER. DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9766/2015 Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Registrar General, RHC & Anr. Date of Order ::::::: 22.07.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Kamlendra Sihag with Mr. Gajendra Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma for respondents.
Heard on admission.
2. The petitioner is admittedly posted as IInd Grade Teacher in a Government School since 2011. He submitted an application to appear in the examination for appointment as District Judge but his candidature has been rejected on the ground that he is in service other than prosecution. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition against the order rejecting his candidature.
3. The provisions for appointment of District Judges are contained in Article 233 of the Constitution which reads as under:-
233. Appointment of district judges:
1.Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
2.A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.
3. Part IV of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 deals with the mode of recruitment. The relevant extract of Rule 33 of these Rules reads as under:-
33. Eligibility for direct recruitment.- For the purpose of direct recruitment under sub-rule (3) of Rule 31, applications shall be invited by the Court from those Advocates, who fulfill the following conditions of eligibility:-
(i)xxxxxx
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) must have been an Advocate for a period of not less than seven years on the last date fixed for receipt of applications.
(iv) xxxxx
(v)the character of a candidate must be such as to render him suitable in the opinion of the Court in all respects for appointment to the service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the District Judge of the District in which he has been practising as a lawyer and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of submission of the application to the Court, from two responsible persons not related to him.
4. In Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik and Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 277 while interpreting Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has held that expression if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate means seven years as an advocate immediately preceding the application and not seven years any time in the past. The above qoted Rule 33 also is inconsonance with Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
5. The petitioner is admittedly in government service since 2011. That means he is not practising as an advocate since last four years. This being the situation, we find no fault in the decision of respondent No.2 in rejecting candidature of the petitioner.
6. The petition has no merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
(Anupinder Singh Grewal),J. (Ajit Singh),J. Bairwa/55
all corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed Kailash Chandra Bairwa Sr.P.A