RAJASTHAN LEGAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Rajasthan Legal Service Association, through its President, impleading the State of Rajasthan. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and others, praying therein that the respondents be directed to treat 3 years' service in the Rajasthan Legal Service as equal to 3 years' practice at the Bar and to allow them in service officers to compete at the selection process for recruitment to the Judicial Service. Some other consequential and incidental reliefs have also been sought by the petitioner-association. A further prayer to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner-association has also been made.

(2.) THE same association preferred a writ petition (C) No. 662 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 15. 03. 2001 disposed of the same with certain observations. THE order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:- "the petitioners are members of Rajasthan Legal Service. Consequent upon the judgment of this Court in All India Judges' Association and Ors. etc. etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. (1993 (4) SCC 288), the State of Rajasthan amended Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules by Rajasthan Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 1994 and in additional condition was incorporated in the Rules in terms of the directions given in para-20 of the Second Judges case. That direction reads as follows: "we, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a Lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung. " THE First National Judicial Pay Commission, which was set up as per directions given in Writ Petition No. 1092 of 1989 on 13. 11. 1991, has submitted its report. One of the issues considered in that report also pertains to recruitment to the judicial service at all stages and prescription of qualifications for recruitment as a judicial officer at the lowest rung. THE petitioner submit that the direction given in Paragraph 20 in the Second Judges Case (supra) is being interpreted by the State as a restraint on its power to legislate or make amendments to Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules relating to qualifications for recruitment. That does not appear to be the intention of the above direction to allay the apprehension expressed before us, we clarify that observations made in paragraph 20 of the Second Judges Case (supra) were not meant to operate as any restraint on the power of the State to legislate, in consultation with the High Court, and amend or frame rules pertaining to recruitment to judicial service including prescription of qualifications therefor. However, while framing or amending such rules, we have no doubt that the State as well as the High Court shall keep in mind various pronouncements of this Court as also the suggestions made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission in that behalf. As and when such an amendment is carried out or new rule framed, it would be open to any aggrieved party to question its validity or constitutionality, but at this stage, we express no opinion about it. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. "