THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.5845 AND 9606 OF 2014 DATED 25th APRIL, 2014 WRIT PETITION NO.5845 OF 2014:
Between:
Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, s/o.G.Purushotham Reddy, aged 22 years, Occupation: Final Year Law Student, H.No.13-3-690/4/1, Ranganath Nagar, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, and others.
and High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, A.P., represented by its Registrar General, FAC. Registrar (Recruitment), and another.
… Petitioners.
… Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.9606 OF 2014:
Between:
M.Sundeep, s/o. M.S.S.Prasad, r/o.H.No.302, Plot No.285, Anoos Villa, Pragati Nagar, Kukatpally, and others.
… Petitioners and High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, A.P., represented by its Registrar General, and another.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.5845 AND 9606 OF 2014 C O M M O N O R D E R (Per Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioners in these two cases are final year law students who are yet to appear for their examinations and obtain their Law Degrees. They are aggrieved by the Notification dated 01.02.2014 issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in so far as it prescribes that aspiring candidates for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges must possess a Bachelor’s Degree in Law. They seek directions from this Court to set aside the said condition; to receive their applications without insisting on compliance with this condition; and to permit them to undergo the prescribed tests.
The petitioners contend that the impugned condition would keep eligible candidates in Andhra Pradesh from competing for the posts while identically situated law students in other States would be at liberty to do so. They point out that in the State of Rajasthan, a similar notification permitted those appearing for final year law examinations to apply for the posts but in Andhra Pradesh, the impugned condition restricted eligibility to only those who already possess Law Degrees and did not extend the zone of consideration to those who are on the verge of completing their law course and obtaining their degrees. This alleged discrimination is the sole ground of attack in both the cases.
W.P.No.5845 of 2014 was filed on 28.02.2014, a day before the stipulated last date for receipt of the applications. This Court therefore permitted the petitioners therein to submit their applications but the same were directed to be kept separately. W.P.No.9606 of 2014, on the other hand, was filed long after the expiry of the stipulated last date. Prayer for similar interim relief was accordingly rejected by this Court on 28.03.2014.
Counter-affidavits are yet to be filed by the respondents but the cases were taken up on the mention made by Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.9606 of 2014, that there was urgency in the matter as the written test pursuant to the Notification dated 01.02.2014 is to be held shortly. Arguments having been heard, the cases are amenable to final disposal.
The subject posts form part of the services under the State and not an All India Service. The State/competent authority would thus be at liberty to prescribe independent eligibility conditions and provide the procedure for assessment thereof. Reliance placed by the petitioners on the system followed in the State of Rajasthan is therefore of no avail. There is no requirement in law that judicial officers all over the country should be appointed applying the same norms. There is thus no discrimination as alleged. The contention of the petitioners in this regard must therefore fail.
Further, insistence upon a candidate possessing a law degree to be eligible for consideration is not irrational. Possession of a law degree is mandated by the rules as a condition of eligibility and rightly so, as a law student cannot be presumed to be equipped with the required knowledge of laws on par with a law graduate. A final year law student is yet to acquire a degree and if he is subjected to and emerges successful in the selection process at that stage but ultimately fails to obtain a law degree, his selection would not only be farcical but would also render the process an exercise in futility. As the intention underlying the selections is to pick deserving candidates for the posts, weeding out doubtful candidates at the threshold by insisting upon the basic qualification is not illogical.
Appointment to the posts of Civil Judges in this State is governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rule 5(2) of these Rules deals with eligibility and stipulates that to be appointed as a Civil Judge by direct recruitment, a person must hold a Degree in Law awarded by an Indian University. Therefore, the condition precedent for a candidate seeking direct appointment to the post is possession of a Law Degree from an Indian University. The Rules however do not stipulate in explicit terms as to when this eligibility is to be assessed. In the absence of express mention in the Rules, it is well settled that the competent authority, while issuing the notification, can fix the cut-off date for assessment of eligibility. [See SHANKAR K. MANDAL V/s. STATE
[1]
O F BIHAR ]. The Notification dated 01.02.2014, in so far as
qualifications are concerned, fixes the cut-off date as under: “III. QUALIFICATIONS:
Only those candidates who possess the qualifications prescribed under A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and the qualifications as indicated below, as on the last date, stipulated for submission of applications, shall be eligible to apply.”
As per the Notification, the last date for submission of the applications was 01.03.2014.
In M.V. NAIR (Dr.) V/s. UNION OF INDIA
[2]
, the Supreme Court held that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving applications, unless the notification itself specifies such a date separately.
This being the legal position, the contention of the petitioners that they should be considered eligible for being selected as Civil Judges, though they do not possess the prescribed qualification as on the stipulated cut-off date, cannot be countenanced.
The writ petitions are therefore devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
--------------------------------------------- KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, CJ 25th APRIL, 2014 PGS
[1] (2003) 9 SCC 519
[2] (1993) 2 SCC 429 ------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J