PREM DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner desires issuance of a writ of mundamus on respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to permit him to appear in the ensuing examination for selection and appointment to Additional District Judge in the State of Bihar, even though he has joined the Judicial Service as a Munsif in the State of Bihar in the year 1986.

(2.) In appears that in the year 1985 pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner applied to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge by way of direct recruitment having fulfilled all the eligibility clauses and the norms required by the advertisement, namely, he had been an Advocate and practiced for seven years. For some reason or the other, the selection process and/or appointment could not be made. The petitioner, while his application remained pending for direct recruitment as an Additional District Judge took an appointment to the post of Munsif in the year 1986. In the year 1989 -90, a fresh advertisement was issued for appointment of Additional District Judges and it is provided in the said advertisement that those persons, who had already applied earlier pursuant to the earlier advertisement, need not apply afresh and their applications would be considered as of other candidates.

(3.) The petitioners grievance is that while persons similarly situated were issued admit cards to participate in the examination for selection and subsequent appointment as Additional District Judge, he has been denied the said opportunity and, therefore, the action is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further contends that he had put in seven years as an Advocate and was eligible on the date the first advertisement was brought out. He will therefore, be deemed to be eligible for all intents and purposes and the bar under Article 233(2) of the Constitution will be inapplicable in this case, Had he not been eligible when the advertisement in the year 1985 was brought out, the question would have been altogether different. In short, the argument is that if the petitioner was not in service of the State on the date he made the application for appointment as an Additional District Judge, his eligibility consideration will be referable to the date of advertisement and not otherwise.