Petitioner challenged rejection of his application for District Judge post citing lack of Bar experience. Court held petitioner failed to meet seven-year experience requirement by cut-off date, dismissed writ petition, and closed pending petitions.
Writ petition dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRI T PETI TI ON No.35112 of 2016
Betw een:
Tejavath Jayaraj
PETITIONER
And
RESPONSENTS
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.35112/2016
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRI T PETI TI ON No.35112 of 2016
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
Heard Mr. V. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel takes notice for the 3rd respondent.
Admittedly, the petitioner got enrolled as an advocate on 31.07.2009. Therefore, he has not completed seven years of experience at the Bar as on 01.04.2016, the cut off date for determining the eligibility criteria, for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). The notification dated 12.08.2016, made it clear that the eligibility criteria would be with respect to the time prescribed by the Supreme Court. As per the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court refused to extend, the eligibility criteria has to be reckoned with reference to the cut off date i.e., 01.04.2016. If so calculated the petitioner does not qualify. Hence rejection of his candidature is perfectly in order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN
_______________________ JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
2nd November, 2016
VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.35112/2016
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRI T PETI TI ON No.35112 of 2016
Date: 2-11-2016
Js.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner qualifies for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge given he had not completed seven years of Bar experience by the cut-off date.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of District Judge was justified.
Tejavath Jayaraj
State of Telangana
V. Ramasubramanian
G. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
