Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
J. Mahesh Kumar And Ors. vs Registrar General, High Court Of A.P. on 21 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)ALT631
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
ORDER AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent-Registrar General of this Court to declare the petitioners as eligible for the written 'test and interview for appointment to the posts of Junior Civil Judges as per Notification dated 1-2-2002 and consequently direct the respondent to receive applications submitted by the petitioners and to permit them to appear for the entrance and interview.
2. The Notification for appointment to the posts of Junior Civil Judges was issued as far back as 29-1-2002 which was published in the Daily Newspaper, "the Hindu" dated 1st February, 2002. The Writ Petition has now been filed taking shelter under the observations made by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2002 (3) Supreme 180. In the said case, Honourable Supreme Court, while referring to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' case, , observed:
"............this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years' standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent, which is available, is not attracted to the judicial service. A bright young law graduate, after 3 years of practice, finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Sheety Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to be an Advocate of at least three years' standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges' case, direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one year, preferably two years."
3. In view of the above observations of the Supreme Court, the petitioners seek permission to permit the petitioners who are practising lawyers to appear for the ensuing examinations and also to participate in the selection process. In our opinion, the observations made by the Supreme Court are only prospective and not retrospective in operation. This apart, the Supreme Court has issued directions to the State Governments and to the High Courts to amend the existing Rules which were earlier amended pursuant to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' case (2 supra). The petitioners can claim benefit only after the Rules are amended.
4. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.