The Telangana High Court dismisses petitions challenging the 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 judges Sujoy Paul And N Tukaramji upheld the validity of the rules relating to the age limits for entry into the Judicial Service in Telangana and the requirement that prospective lawyers had practiced in Telangana to be eligible to take the Judicial Service Examination.

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

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

In particular, Rule 5.2(A) of the Rules 2023 stipulates the eligibility criteria for candidates appearing for the State Judicial Services Exam, including the age limits.

The petitioners before the Court alleged 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 stating that it falls within the domain of a policy decision.

A cut-off date should be prescribed, which will always rob a few persons who are below and above the cut-off age, it was further argued.

To reach its decision, the Court relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Devansh Koushik case which had enforced similar rules applicable in Madhya Pradesh.

In that case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that there was nothing in the impugned rules to prevent deserving law graduates from appearing for the examination.

The Telangana High Court further observed that talented law students were also given a full opportunity to participate in the selection under the 2023 rules and lawyers would also be able to participate.

The Court also ruled that there was nothing wrong with prescribing different age limits for candidates who were lawyers and candidates who had only studied law.

“A candidate who intends to participate as a lawyer is not in the same situation as a candidate who is not a lawyer and has only a law degree. So we cannot convince ourselves with this argument that the age limit is the same for all of them,” said the Court.

The other rule challenged was Rule 2(k) of the Rules, 2023, which defined ‘Court’ as the ‘Telangana High Court’.

This provision effectively meant that if the candidate for the judicial services was an advocate, he/she would have had to practice in the courts of Telangana to meet the eligibility criteria for access to the judicial services in Telangana. The petitioners argued that such a rule promoted provincialism.

The Supreme Court counsel maintained that there is no valid reason to challenge Rule 2(k) of the 2023 Rules, which is a definitional clause. The rule makers have the power to create these rules based on their administrative needs, it was argued.

The Court found the defendant’s arguments well-founded and reaffirmed that the definition of “Court” under Rule 2(k) referred only to the Telangana High Court.

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

The Court also referred to a related judgment of the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a similar challenge.

The Court also rejected a challenge to the requirement under Rule 5.2(A) that a prospective lawyer must obtain a certificate of practice from the relevant Bar Association in order to take the judicial service examination.

“The requirement to provide such a certificate is not unfounded. The purpose of obtaining this certificate is to ensure that the lawyer actually works at the court concerned. Since there is a purpose being pursued, it cannot be considered unconstitutional. So this ground must also fail’ the Court ruled.

The Court ultimately concluded that there was nothing unconstitutional about the 2023 rules. The Court therefore dismissed the requests.

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