Telangana High Court dismisses petitions challenging State Judicial Services Rules 2023

The Telangana High Court recently dismissed petitions challenging certain provisions of the Telangana State Judicial Services Rules, 2023.

A bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and N Tukaramji upheld the validity of rules concerning the age limits to enter judicial service in Telangana and the requirement for lawyer candidates to have practiced in Telangana to be eligible to write the judicial services exam.

To this effect, the Court passed two orders on May 2 and May 3 dismissing a batch of petitions by judicial service aspirants challenging Rule 2(k) and Rule 5.2(A) of the 2023 Rules.

"We do not find any unconstitutionality in the relevant rules of Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 and consequently, notification dated 10.04.2024 issued by respondent No.3 is not bad in law. Therefore, admission of these Writ Petitions is declined and the Writ Petitions are dismissed", said the Court.

Notably, Rule 5.2(A) of the 2023 Rules lays down the eligibility criteria for candidates appearing for the State Judicial Services Exam, including the age limits.

The petitioners before the Court claimed that the upper and lower age limits prescribed in the said rule were arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The counsel representing the Telangana High Court (respondent) defended the validity of the rule by arguing that it falls under the realm of a policy decision.

A cutoff date has to be prescribed, which will always deprive a few persons who are below and above the cutoff age, it was further argued.

To make its decision, the Court relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement in the Devansh Koushik case which had upheld similar rules applicable in Madhya Pradesh.

In that case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that there was nothing in the challenged rules which prevented meritorious law graduates from competing in the exam.

The Telangana High Court went on to observe that under the 2023 rules as well, talented law students got a full chance to participate in the selection and that lawyers too would be able to participate.

The Court also found that there was nothing wrong with prescribing different age limits for candidates who were advocates and candidates who were only law graduates.

"A candidate intending to participate as an Advocate is not similarly situated qua a candidate who is not an Advocate and merely a law graduate. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with this line of argument that age limit for all of them must be the same," the Court said.

The other rule under challenge was Rule 2(k) of the 2023 Rules, which defined "Court" as the "Telangana High Court."

This provision effectively meant that if the judicial service candidate was a lawyer, s/he should have practiced in Telangana courts to clear the eligibility criteria to enter judicial services in Telangana. The petitioners argued that such a rule promoted provincialism.

The High Court's counsel maintained that there is no valid reason to challenge Rule 2(k), which is a definition clause. The rule makers have the authority to create these rules based on their administrative needs, it was argued.

The Court found merit in the respondent's arguments and reaffirmed that the definition of "Court" under Rule 2(k) exclusively referred to the Telangana High Court.

This definition was tied directly to the objectives of the rules and was constitutionally valid, the High Court said.

The Court also referred to a related Telangana High Court judgement which had dismissed a similar challenge.

The Court also dismissed a challenge to the requirement under Rule 5.2 (A) for a lawyer-candidate to secure a certificate of practice from the concerned Bar Association in order to write the judicial service exam.

"The requirement to furnish such certificate is not without any basis. The purpose to obtain that certificate is to ensure that the Advocate is actually practising in the concerned Court. Since there is an object sought to be achieved, the same cannot be called as unconstitutional. Thus, this ground must also fail," the Court held.

The Court eventually concluded that there was nothing unconstitutional about the 2023 rules and dismissed the petitions.

Advocates Anup Koushik Karavadi and Pratap Narayan Sanghi appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Harender Pershad appeared for the respondent (Telangana High Court).

[Read Judgment]