RAMESH M PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an advocate, has challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 on the ground that they are violative of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India as they do not provide for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in the judicial services.

(2.) Since the petition is now confined only to the question regarding reservation policy in judicial service and the challenge against the validity of the impugned recruitment rules, we will refer to the pleadings relevant to the controversy centering around that issue.

(3.) Rule 4(1)(ii), inter alia, provided for method of appointment to a post in the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) by direct selection, which belongs to Class I of the Junior Branch. Rule 4(2)(ii), inter alia, made a provision for the post of Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 4, it was provided that where an appointment to any post is to be made by direct selection, it shall be made from amongst the candidates who are not more than 45 years of age (except that candidates belonging to communities recognized as Backward by Government for purposes of recruitment may not be more than 48 years). Admittedly, there is no provision in the impugned rules having any bearing on reservation of vacancies or posts in judicial services covered by them.