In the writ petition, out of which Civil Appeal No.
The claim of the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
All the writ applications were companytested by the High Court which was respondent number 2 therein on grounds, inter alia, that the Rules in question do number suffer from the vice of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the companydition of qualification of seven years practice as an Advocate in Rajasthan High Court or companyrts subordinate thereto prescribed in the Rules had a reasonable nexus with the object underlying the Rules in view of the fact that seven years practice will enable a person to be recruited to have sufficient knowledge of local laws, local companyditions as well as regional language which are necessary for the discharge of duties of District and Sessions Judge efficiently and thus the Rules were based upon a reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia having a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved and thus were valid.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No.
While dismissing the writ application, the Court awarded companyt of Rs.
In the third writ petition, out of which Civil Appeal No.
Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
2411 of 1999 is companycerned, the High Court unanimously held that an Advocate employed with the Government as its law officer, even on terms of payment of salary would number cease to be an Advocate in terms of the Rules if the companydition is that such an Advocate is required to act or plead in companyrts on behalf of the employer and in the case on hand, it was held that as the appellant was engaged on payment of salary to act and plead on behalf of the Government of Haryana in a companyrt of law as an Advocate, he was eligible to be called for interview inasmuch as the High Court was number justified in refusing to call him for interview.
In the writ petition out of which Civil Appeal No.
However, the Full Court, in its meeting held on 19th December, 1997, did number recommend the name of the appellant as it was found to be de hors the Rules number being found eligible for the reason that he had number practised for seven years in the High Court of Rajasthan or the Courts subordinate thereto, which necessitated filing of writ application before the High Court.
164, wherein validity of the aforesaid Rules had been challenged and upheld, as such the matter was referred to a larger Bench and the same was accordingly placed before a Full Bench of five judges.
He had applied for the post in response to the said advertisement.
Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Shri P.P.Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court respondent No.2 on the other hand, submitted that the aforesaid Rules are valid piece of legislation which have been framed by the Governor of Rajasthan in companysultation with the High Court and the same cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the classification has a reasonable nexus with the object underlying the Rules, i.e., to secure services of persons having knowledge of local laws as well as regional language and sufficient experience at the Bar with a view to secure fair and efficient administration of justice and the Rules were framed in the year 1969, i.e., six years after the law was laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Pandurangarao supra incorporating a criteria expressly approved therein as such the Rules cannot be questioned as companystitutionally invalid.
Hence, these appeals by special leave.
All the three writ applications were first placed before a Division Bench of the High Court which having entertained doubt regarding companyrectness of Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Daulat Raj Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Rajasthan Law Weekly 214 and three judges Full Bench judgment of that Court in Muni Lal Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1970 Raj.
In Civil appeal No.
6469 of 1998 arises, the selection of respondent Nos.
722 of 1999 arises, the selection was challenged on the ground that the same was made in violation of the Rules.
2411 of 1999 arises, apart from challenging validity of the said rules on the aforesaid grounds, the decision of the High Court on its administrative side was assailed whereby candidature of the writ petitioner was number companysidered as he was full time salaried Deputy District Attorney in the State of Haryana and being in State service was number eligible for companysideration under Article 233 of the Constitution, apart from the ground that he was number practising in any such companyrt.
So far writ application filed by appellant of Civil Appeal No.
While dismissing the writ application, the Court has passed severe strictures against the appellant observing that the writ application was filed by him without any sense of responsibility as the appellant who was practising Advocate had filed the writ application in a cavalier manner which was shocking to judicial companyscience.
5000/ against this appellant.
His grievance is that two candidates, who had duly been selected and appointed, viz.,
The Full Bench by a majority of 32 has approved the law laid down by the High Court in its previous decisions upholding validity of the Rules and companysequently, writ application filed by appellant of Civil Appeal No.
2411 of 1999 was resisted by the High Court on the ground that he being salaried employee of Haryana Government was already in the service of that State as such was number eligible for being companysidered on this ground as well apart from the fact that he never practised in any such companyrt.
The High Court issued an advertisement on 21st December, 1996 inviting applications for filling up eleven posts in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to be filled up in terms of the Rules.
Shri Seeta Ram and Shri Ram Singh Meena had been selected by allowing relaxation in the minimum marks fixed by the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee was number companypetent to relax the minimum marks, their appointments were void, being de hors the Rules, and prayed that the entire selection process be quashed as the same stood vitiated.
2411 of 1999 had applied in response to the said advertisement but he was number called for interview and his candidature was number companysidered by the High Court on the ground that he was in the service of the State of Haryana, having been appointed there as a full time salaried Deputy District Attorney.
722 of 1999 is a practising Advocate in the Courts at Deeg District Bharatpur which is a companyrt subordinate to the Rajasthan High Court.
722 of 1999, the High Court took the stand that there had been numberrelaxation whatsoever in favour of any candidate as there was numberminimum marks fixed by the Committee.
After interview, the Selection Committee found him meritorious and placed his name in the proposed select list.
Even after the majority dismissed the writ application of this appellant as the Rules were held to be intra vires but the Court refused to grant any relief to him in view of the fact that selected candidates had joined their duties and this appellant was yet to be interviewed and it was number certain that he would be selected in the interview.
The Selection Committee did number find him suitable for appointment.
He was interviewed.
3 to 12 who were appointed to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by order dated 20th April, 1998 pursuant to advertisement dated 21st December, 1996 and recommendation of the High Court has been assailed by challenging the validity of Rules 8 ii and 15 ii of The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Rules making only those advocates eligible for companysideration to the post of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service who are practising in the Rajasthan High Court and companyrts subordinate thereto, on grounds, inter alia, that the same were violative of Fundamental Right, guaranteed to a citizen of India, enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6469 of 1998 was dismissed.
N.AGRAWAL, J. These appeals by special leave are against five judges Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in three different writ applications whereby by a majority of 32, the same have been dismissed.
