SHAIK MOHIUDDIN SOHAIL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are practising Advocates. They filed the Writ Petition with the following prayer:

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners averred that they have enrolled as Advocates in the year 2001 and have been practicing as such and that they are qualified for selection and appointment as Junior Civil Judges pursuant to the Notification dated 29-1-2002 of the 2nd respondent excepting the qualifying practice of three years. It is also averred that in view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above, their cases for appointment as Junior Civil Judges may be considered even without putting the three years practice as an Advocate. It is also averred in paragraph-6 of the writ affidavit that:

(3.) Mr. V.V.L.N. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the law declared by the Supreme court shall be binding on all Courts in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the law declared in the above case by the Apex Court shall be regarded as the law governing the recruitment to State Judicial Service also. He would further submit that in view of the mandate given by the Apex Court in the above decision, all the State Governments in the country, including the Government of Andhra Pradesh, are bound to amend the Rules so as to enable a fresh Law Graduate, who may not have even put in three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service and it is a formality and that since the Apex-Court has now declared the law on the subject, the Writ Petition is filed seeking the aforementioned prayer.