BIMLA LEKHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service rules, 1969, relevant for recruitment to the rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, provide in rules 8 (ii) and 15 (ii) that for direct recruitment, the advocates must have practised in the rajasthan High Court or the courts subordinate thereto for a period of not less than seven years. This means, those who had not practised in the courts at Rajasthan were ineligible. In Ganga Ram Moo/chandani v. State of rajasthan,. (2001) 6 SCC 89. this Court, while striking down rules 8 (ii) and 15 (ii) being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, protected those who had already been appointed to the rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. It was made clear that the judgment would not affect any appointment made prior to the date of the judgment, though the Rules have been found to be invalid.

(2.) The appellants before us in both the appeals, admittedly, had not been so appointed. It has been pointed out that the name of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 656 of 2003 had been recommended whereas the name of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 658 of 2003 had been returned to the High Court, after government verification, for taking final decision in regard to the recommendation for appointment. Insofar as Civil Appeal No. 658 of 2003 is concerned, the fact that any junior to the appellant had been appointed is of no consequence. Similarly, the fact that the recommendation had been made by the full court and only orders were to be made, insofar as the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 656 of 2003 is concerned, by the Government is also of no relevance in view of the directions in moolchandani case. The judgment in moolchandani case only protects those candidates who had been appointed prior to the date of the judgment. Both the appeals are squarely covered against the appellants by the decision rendered by this Court in Moolchandani case.

(3.) The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.