Petitioner challenged the age limit in a District Judge (Entry Level) recruitment notification. He was permitted by interim order to appear in the examination but failed to qualify. The recruitment process was completed. Holding the challenge academic and unsustainable after his failure, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
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.
[348e ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 6496 OF 2021
Between:
Vangala Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Sri.V.Venkat Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ ; Advocate, Fl/o 2-2-181181415211 , DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Notification vide., ROC No. 59/2020-RC Dt.21l10l2o2o issued by the 2nd Respondent for filing up the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct recruitment, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and iniquitous in nature, opposed to principles of natural justice, u nconstitutional and contrary to Telangana State Judicial (service and Cadre) Rules, 20.17 and consequently set-aside the said Notification vide., ROC No. 59/2020-RC Dt.21l10l2020issued by the 2nd Respondent in the interest of justice.
-,,.-7.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2021
Petition Under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleasedto stay all furtherproceedings in filling up for thepost of District Judge(Entry Level)by Direct recruitment through Notification vide., ROC No. 59/2020-RC Dt.2111012020 issued by the 2nd Respondentpending disposal of the writpetitionin theinterest ofjustice and equity and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. PASUMARTHY PAVITHRA SAl, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M.MALLIKARJUN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-ll
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI T.P.S.HARSHA
The Court made the following ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITI ON No.6496 OF 2021
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Jusrice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Ms.Pasumarthy Pavithra Sai, leamed counsel
representing, Mr.M. Mallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M. Shalini, leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-Il, for respondent No.1 and Mr. T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel for Kopal Sharrafl, for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
2
.-I\ '*:5ryq+-,
\ *'- r :.i:;FiF
...]'3rr..'
' '.41.ar..
_.4 - :
-L, ...
process and completed the same bygiving appointmentsto the most meritorious candidates.
4 In the light of the said development,the leamed counsel for the respondents submitthat the matter, therefore, hasbecome infructuous, as nothing furtherremainsto be adjudicated upon in the present Writ Petitionand the matter so far as the age relaxation is concerned also isnow ofonly an academic interest.
.,
\
petitioner accepted the said interim relief with wide open eyes and has also tried his luck by appearing in the examination as perrnitted by the Division Bench vide its order dated 17.03.2021 Now having got disqualified in the said examination, the petitioner cannot be permitted to tum around and challenge the notification itself, which otherwise was challenged only so far as the petitioner being excluded from participating in the rccluirment process on account of him having crossed the upper age limit.-l-he lelief sought for was permitted by way of aforesaid interim ordcr by the Division Bench, after which the petitioner cannot claim any extra time to be granted for preparation for appearing in the written examination
\
7 After the publication of the notification, it is not expected from the petitioner, if he was a serious candidate to have been preparing for the said examination all along without waiting tbr any notification to be published, whereby only if he would find himself eligible for parlicipation thereafter would he start his preparation for the examination. Such a prayer made by the petitioner is truly not acceptable. So far as the age relaxation is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that issue is only of
L..
t,. |.'-l^ I.x
4
'. '::
:
an academic interest, as the petitionerhad been permittedto
participate ir the examination, inspite ofhis having crossed the
maximum age limit.
at thisjunctute. 'fhere shallbe no order as to costs
Consequentiy, miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed
S MALLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \rs SECTION OFFICER To 1 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court t he State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 2. One CC to SRI MAGHAM MALLIKARJUN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI T.P.S.HARSHA, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies SA LS Ig-
HIGH COURT
DATED:1110812025
-/:.-:::\ .-
- .,,._ _,./r/(, <br>1.':
|'' .,, 24 siP mr
l
.v
+
.J t-. ', .,.' :/
.)',''.,i ' 2'
---...1.--''"
ORDER
WP.No.6496 ot 2021
DISMISSING THE W.P
WITHOUT COSTS.
ti
q L1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notification for direct recruitment to District Judge (Entry Level) fixing the upper age limit was illegal and arbitrary.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vangala Jagan Mohan Reddy
The State of Telangana, Chief Secretary to Government General Administration
The Registrar (Recruitment), The High Court for the State of Telangana
P.Sam Koshy
Suddala Chalapathi Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
