SUDHIR JIWAN Vs. RAJ STATE PUBLIC SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a resident of Gurgaon (Haryana) and is a practicing Advocate at Delhi, has filed this writ petition in this Court contending inter -alia that subsequent to his passing LL.B. Examination in the year 1991, the result of which was declared by Delhi University on 31.7.1991, the petitioner applied for enrollment as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi and since the meeting of the Bar Council took place only in the month of August, 1991 the petitioner could get enrollment as an Advocate on 26th August, 1991 vide enrollment certificate (Annexure2). It has been further contended in the writ petition that subsequent to his enrollment the petitioner has been in active practice as an Advocate both at Delhi as well as Gurgaon and had completed 3 years of practice at the Bar at Gurgaon on 26.8.1994.

(2.) IT has been contended by Shri Virendra Lodha, learned Counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 1st July, 1994 published in 'Rojgar Sandesh' dated 15th July 1994 (Annex. 3), the petitioner applied in the requisite application format along with relevant testimonials including his original marksheet, enrollment Certificate etc. to the respondents for being accorded permission to appear in the examination for appointment on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate in 'R.J.S.' examination to be conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short 'RPSC'). Apart from the requirement of passing the written examination for being considered for appointment on the post of Munsif -cum -judicial Magistrate, the eligibility criteria in terms of the aforesaid advertisement was twofold:

(3.) SHRI Ashok Parihar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has strongly controverted the aforesaid contentions advanced by Shri Virendra Lodha by contending at the bar that both the conditions as referred to above, i.e., the requirement of age as well as minimum 3 years of practice as an Advocate at the Bar are mandatory conditions before a candidate can be permitted to appear in R.J.S. examination and there is no scope for any re -lexation with regard to the aforesaid requirements under the Rules. It has been further contended by Shri Parihar that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had passed the written examination, it does not by itself give the incumbent any right to be considered for appointment in R.J.S., since it is for the R.P.S.C. to consider the merit of a candidate before issuing any call letter for vive -voise before appointment of the said candidate in R.J.S. In support of his contentions reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of UPSC, Allahabad and Anr. v. Alpana : [1994]1SCR131 where a similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. In this case the appellant UPSC Allahabad issued an Advertisement inviting applications for competitive examination UP Judicial Service (Munsif) examination, 1988. Last date for receipt of the application was 20.8.88 and it was mentioned in the Advertisement that the candidates must possess LLB. Degree on the last date of receipt of applications. In the Advertisement it was also mentioned that attested copy of the degree must also be attached with the application. The respondent submitted an application stating that she had appeared in Law Degree Examination and was awaiting result which was declared in October, 1988. The appellant allowed the respondent to appear in the written examination held from 3rd to 5th May, 1990 which she successfully passed. She was however, not called for interview on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility conditions of educational qualification as on the last date fixed for receipt of application. On the intervention of the High Court the respondent was interviewed by the appellant but the result was kept in abayance. Later on the High Court finally disposed of the matter by directing the appellant to declare the result of the respondent and if she was successful to forward her name to the State Govt. for appointment. A supernumerary post was also directed to be created to accommodate the respondent. Allowing the appeal of the appellant, it was held by the Apex Court that there is no rule or practice which permitted entertaining of respondent's application in such circumstances and the appellant was therefore, right in refusing to call the respondent for interview. It was further held by the Apex Court that in the absence of any specific rule, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the decision of the appellant no to interview the respondent. It was further held that if once such an approach is recognised, there would be several applications received from such candidates who are not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of Selecting Authority but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withdraw interviews till the results are declared, there by causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for a long spell of time. It was further held that 'if however, the respondent has already been appointed in pursuance of the High Court order, her appointment shall not be cancelled.' Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the facts of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed, since there cannot be any rule or practice for considering the candidature of the petitioner contrary to the rules fixing the eligibility criteria for appointment in R.J.S. and there is no provision in the rules for relaxation of the requirements. I am further of the opinion that since the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of minimum experience of 3 years of standing as an Advocate at the Bar, Merely because the said candidate had been given permission to appear in the examination/or R.J.S., that by itself does not entitle the petitioner to be considered for appointment in R.J.S., since it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have fulfilled both the conditioners as required under the fules. Since the petitioner was found lacking for fulfillment of first condition, i.e., experience of 3 years at the Bar, the respondent RPSC was perfectly justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned letter, dated 20.4.1995 (Annexure 5).