RADHA CHARAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -- an Advocate of this High Court --challenges the advertisement dated September 11, 1963, issued by the Registrar of the Orissa High Court inviting applications for one post of District Judge under Rules 8 (2) (ii) and 6 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution for the regulation of recruitment to posts in, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to, the Orissa Superior Judicial Service, as unconstitutional and invalid with a prayer for directing the Registrar of the Orissa High Court to republish the said advertisement.

(2.) RULE 8 (2) is this;

(3.) THE petitioner's point is that all that is required by the Constitution is that the candidate should be an Advocate of 7 years standing irrespective of his age. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, one can be an Advocate if he has completed 21 years of age; therefore he becomes eligible for appointment to the post of a District Judge at the age of 28 years after completing seven years' practice as an Advocate. According to the petitioner, the restriction that the candidate shall not be under 35 and over 45 years of age as laid down in the Rule and in the advertisement, is an unreasonable restriction not envisaged by the Constitution; in fact, it is stated to be violative of article 233 (2) by which all that is required is that he shall be an Advocate or pleader for not less than 7 years and be recommended by the High Court for appointment. In support of this proposition, the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court (Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 816)holding that the appointment as District Judge of a person whose name was on the roll of Advocates of the East Punjab High Court on the date of his appointment and who had a period of 7 years' practice at the Bar including his period of service in or under the Lahore High Court before partition, was not open to objection under article 233 of the Constitution. The passage in the judgment on which the petitioner relied is this: