DAULAT RAJ SINGHVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal before us which is brought under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15-9-69 dismissing the appellant's writ petition, raises a question about the vires of rules 15 (ii) and 8 (ii) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969, hereinafter to be referred as the "rules".

(2.) THE appellant was enrolled as a Pleader on 28-8-53 and practised as Pleader in Rajasthan till 4-11-62 when he was enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act of 1961. He continued to practise as an Advocate in Rajasthan for some time, but thereafter he shifted to Gujarat and was enrolled as an Advocate on the Bar Council of Gujarat in the month of April, 1969. Accordingly, his name was removed from the rolls of the Bar Council, Rajasthan. THE appellant in this way had to his credit about 16 years practice at the Bar, out of which he had practised for 6 years and 2 months as an Advocate. THE appellant was born in Rajasthan and he had his education, in Rajasthan. THE Governor of Rajasthan made the Rules in exercise of his powers under Art. 309 read with Art. 233 of the Constitution and they came into force on 21-1-69. In accordance with these Rules the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service which was till then governed by the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1955 was reconstituted. THE Rules of 1969 provided for two sources of recruitment to the service as in the previous Rules namely, (1) by promotion from amongst the members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service; or (2) by direct recruitment from the Advocate who have practised in the Court of Rajasthan for a period of not less than 7 years. It is the provision relating to the direct recruitment which is under challenge. In accordance with these Rules the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court invited applications for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service from Advocates who had practised in the Rajasthan High Court or Courts subordinate thereto for a period of not less than 7 years and who were otherwise eligible for appointment. Six vacancies were declared to be filled in by direct recruitment. A number of applications were received, but the appellant did not make any application thinking that he was not eligible for appointment as a District Judge. He challenged the vires of rules 8 (H) and 15 (H) of the Rules on the ground that they were violative of Art. 15, 16 and 233 of the Constitution. THE appellant's contention before the learned Single Judge was that as the eligibility for direct recruitment was confined to Advocates in Rajasthan only, discrimination was brought about on account of the place of residence and this had no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. It was next contended that the rules were violative of Art. 233 (2) of the Constitution on the ground that whereas the Article made both pleaders as well as advocates eligible for recruitment to the service as District Judges, the Rules have cut down the eligibility to only advocates who have practised for 7 years in Rajasthan. THE learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, repelled the contentions. He held that the object of the Rules was to recruit suitable and proper persons to the Higher Judicial Service in the State with a view to securing an efficient administration of justice and the qualification of 7 years practice as an Advocate in the Rajasthan High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto had a reasonable nexus with the object underlying the Rules, as the 7 years' practice will enable a person to be recruited to acquire sufficient knowledge of local laws, local conditions as well as the regional language which was necessary for discharging the duties of a District Judge efficiently. As regards the second contention it was held by the learned Judge that Art. 233 (2) of the Constitution laid down only the minimum qualifications and it was open to the rule making authority to prescribe more stringent qualifications for the recruitment of person to the Higher Judicial posts. THE learned Judge fortified himself by observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pandurangrao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another (1 ).