SUNANDA Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the proviso to clause (2) of the advertisement issued by the High Court for appointment to the post of District Judges in the judicial service in the State of Maharashtra. The impugned proviso says that a full time salaried Public Prosecutor, Assistant/Additional Public Prosecutor, Law Officer of the Central Government or State Government or any public corporation or body constituted by the Statute, would not be eligible for the post of District Judge. When it was noticed that the proviso was incorporated in the advertisement in view of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 (for short "the Rules"), the petitioners by amendment have also challenged the validity of the proviso to Rule 5.

(2.) The petitioners, six in number, are all law graduates and have experience as advocates for more than 7 years. Initially they were practicing as advocates and thereafter are serving as Assistant Public Prosecutors and claim to be practicing as advocates. As Assistant Public Prosecutors they plead and argue before the respective courts and claim to be eligible for the post of District Judge in the judicial service of the State of Maharashtra.

(3.) In pursuance of an advertisement dated 18 February 2011 issued by the High Court, the petitioners submitted online applications for being appointed as District Judges.