http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  35 of 2002

PETITIONER: Sunil Kumar Goyal                                                

RESPONDENT: Vs.  Rajasthan Public Service Commission                              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/2003

BENCH: CJI. & S.B. Sinha.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67 of 2002

S.B. SINHA, J :

       The petitioners herein are aspirants of joining Rajasthan Judicial  Service.  They are working as Legal Assistants in the Education Department  of the State of Rajasthan.  Prior thereto they practiced as lawyers but they  had not completed three years’ period as was necessary in terms of the rules  as thence existing.   

       The contention of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that they  having been allowed to appear at the written examination and having been  called for interview, their candidature could not have been cancelled on the  purported ground of non-completion of three years’ practice in terms of the  All India Judges’ Association and Others Vs Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC  247]; keeping in view the fact that they have been representing their  department before the district courts and Tribunal like lawyers in respect  whereof they had affirmed the requisite affidavits and filed certificates  granted by the Competent Authority.   

       Further contention of the petitioners is that having regard to the  decisions of this Court in All India Judges’ Association and Others (supra)  wherein this Court has laid down the law that practice at the Bar would not  be necessary for joining the Judicial Service; this Court should set aside the  impugned directions issued by the respondent â\200\223 Commission.

       It is not in dispute that three years’ minimum practice was a pre- requisite at the relevant time for being eligible to enter in the judicial  service.   

       In All India Judges’ Association and Others Vs. Union of India and  Others [(1993) 4 SCC 288], it was inter alia directed: "52â\200¦.(a) The legal practice of three years should  be made one of the essential qualifications for  recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung  in the judicial hierarchy.  Further, wherever the recruitment of the judicial  officers at the lowest rung is made through the  Public Service Commission, a representative of the  High Court should be associated with the selection  process and his advice should prevail unless there  are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting it,  which reasons should be recorded in writing.  The rules for recruitment of the judicial officers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

should be amended forthwith to incorporate the  above directions."  

       In the said decision, this Court was inter alia considering the question  as regard uniform hierarchy and designation.  It was opined:

"20â\200¦â\200¦In this connection, it may be pointed out  that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, no  person is eligible to be appointed a District Judge  unless he has been an advocate or a pleader for not  less than seven years while Articles 217(2)(b) and  124(3)(b) require at least ten years’ practice as an  advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a  persons to the posts of the Judge of the High Court  and the Judge of the Supreme Court,  respectivelyâ\200¦.."

       A bare perusal of the aforementioned paragraph would leave no  manner of doubt that the minimum legal practice of three years was  prescribed as an essential qualification to be eligible for being appointed as  Judicial Officer so as to ensure recruitment of competent, independent and  honest judicial officers for the purpose of strengthening the administration of  justice and the confidence of public in it.

       This Court, therefore, laid down the law to the effect that a candidate  must have three years’ practice at the Bar.

       The petitioners herein admittedly did not complete the said period of  three years of active practice at the Bar.  They joined services prior thereto.   They might have been representing their department while in service before  the Tribunal but we fail to understand as to how they could appear before the  Court like lawyers.  Be that as it may, representing the employer in a Court  or Tribunal would not amount to practice at the Bar and as such the criteria  laid down by this Court would not stand satisfied.

       Our attention was drawn to an order of this Court passed in I.A. Nos.  31, 32 of 1995 in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 in Writ Petition No. 1022  of 1989.  In that case also it was observed :

"There is no doubt in our minds that what was  intended by the provision was that a candidate for  appointment to judicial office should be a person  who has had three years experience of practice as  an advocate.  He must be a lawyer in the sense that  he regularly practices before a court or tribunal,  who appears for his clients before the court or  tribunal.  It may be that in a given case he may do  so only for a client who is his employer."

       Further, it was directed:

"We, therefore, direct the legal Assistants who are  the applicants in I.As. 7, 8, 9 and 10 to place on  affidavit before the Rajasthan Public Service  Commission within a period of one week from  today a statement of what precisely their work as  Legal Assistant involves.  It is only if that work  involves regularly appearing before courts or  tribunals that they would fall within the  requirements of the provision aforementioned and,  being eligible, should be allowed to complete the  selection process."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       It may be true that pursuant to or in furtherance of said directions the  petitioners had filed affidavits but evidently the impugned order has been  passed by the respondent â\200\223 Public Service Commission being not satisfied as  regard fulfillment of requirement of the statutory rules as then existed.   

       The rules were framed by the State pursuant to the directions of this  Court in All India Judges Association’s case (supra) and thus as regard the  question as to whether the petitioners held the requisite qualifications or not,  the Commission was required to satisfy itself in that behalf on the materials  placed on record as to whether the petitioners fulfilled the said criteria or  not.  Ex-facie we do not find the decision of the Commission to be so  arbitrary so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.   

       The learned counsel may be correct that in All India Judges’  Association and Others Vs Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC 247] this Court  has directed dispensation of practice at the Bar; keeping in view of the  subsequent events.  However, in no uncertain terms it was categorically  stated that before a Judicial Officer is entrusted to decide the fate of the  litigants, he must undergo rigorous judicial training of one year preferably  two years.  It is not in dispute that the State of Rajasthan has amended the  rules pursuant to the directions of this Court.  The petitioners, therefore, are  now eligible to appear at the ensuing examination.   

       Our attention has, however, been drawn to a recent decision of this  Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. Vs. Harish Kumar  Purohit and Others [2003(3) SCALE 571] wherein this Court held that the  High Court has committed an illegality in directing the Commission to de- reserve the 11 posts although they were meant to be filled up by the  candidates belonging to the reserved categories.  In view of the  aforementioned decision alone, this Court cannot presume that the said 11  vacancies would be dereserved and the petitioners would be eligible to fill  up the vacancies wherefor they be given an opportunity to appear at the  interview.   

       It is not in dispute that all other eligible candidates have been  interviewed and select-list has been finalized.  It will, therefore, not be  proper for this Court to reopen the selection process and direct the  respondent-Commission to take the viva-voce test of the petitioners.   

       For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that there is no  merit in these Writ Petitions which are, therefore, dismissed.  However, in  the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.