GANGA RAM MOOLCHANDANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are against five Judges Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in three different writ applications whereby by a majority of 3:2, the same have been dismissed. In the writ petition out of which Civil Appeal No.6469 of 1998 arises, the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 who were appointed to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by order dated 20th April, 1998 pursuant to advertisement dated 21st December, 1996 and recommendation of the High Court has been assailed by challenging the validity of Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') making only those advocates eligible for consideration to the post of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service who are practising in the Rajasthan High Court and courts subordinate thereto, on grounds, inter alia, that the same were violative of Fundamental Right, guaranteed to a citizen of India, enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the writ petition, out of which Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999 arises, apart from challenging validity of the said rules on the aforesaid grounds, the decision of the High Court on its administrative side was assailed whereby candidature of the writ petitioner was not considered as he was full time-salaried Deputy District Attorney in the State of Haryana and being in State service was not eligible for consideration under Article 233 of the Constitution, apart from the ground that he was not practising in any such court. In the third writ petition, out of which Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1999 arises, the selection was challenged on the ground that the same was made in violation of the Rules.

(2.) The High Court issued an advertisement on 21st December, 1996 inviting applications for filling up eleven posts in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to be filled up in terms of the Rules. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6469, who was a practising Advocate in the District Court, Bareilly, a Court subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, applied in response to the said advertisement considering himself to be eligible though the said advertisement specifically provided that a candidate must have practised for seven years in Rajasthan High Court or courts subordinate thereto. He submitted his application through the District Judge, Bareilly. His application was processed by the Rajasthan High Court and he was called for interview. After interview, the Selection Committee found him meritorious and placed his name in the proposed select list. However, the Full Court, in its meeting held on 19th December, 1997, did not recommend the name of the appellant as it was found to be dehors the Rules not being found eligible for the reason that he had not practised for seven years in the High Court of Rajasthan or the Courts subordinate thereto, which necessitated filing of writ application before the High Court.

(3.) Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999 had applied in response to the said advertisement but he was not called for interview and his candidature was not considered by the High Court on the ground that he was in the service of the State of Haryana, having been appointed there as a full-time-salaried Deputy Attorney. According to this appellant, the period spent by him as Deputy District Attorney should have been treated to be period spent as a practising Advocate.