A Division Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rameshwar Vyas ruled that the condition was within the framework of the existing statutory law and dismissed the challenge to a notification which prescribed the condition.
The Court observed that the same was “in consonance with the statutory recruitment rules. Rule 36(1) is not under challenge. The condition, therefore, cannot be set aside.“
The Bench was hearing a plea moved by one Laxmilal Salvi challenging the condition contained in a notification issued by the Rajasthan High Court, regarding the competitive examination for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge in 2020.
It was the case of the petitioner that the condition was not a part of the recruitment rules, and therefore, cannot be inserted through a recruitment notification.
The Court noticed that the recruitment and terms of selection for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge are governed by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules (RJS), 2010 while Part-2 of these rules pertains to direct recruitment.
The Court went on to note that sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 of the 2010 rules requires a candidate while submitting the application, to furnish particulars of ten judgments personally argued by him/ her in the preceding seven years. Additionally, the candidate also has to produce certified copies of such judgments before the main examination.
Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Judiciary Rules 2010 provides:
“36. Submission of application.- (1) While submitting application, candidate shall furnish particulars of 10 judgments of the preceding seven years. He shall produce the certified copies of such judgments before the Main Examination, as prescribed by the Recruiting Authority. The Candidate is required to provide particulars of final orders/judgments personally argued by him, not being interlocutory orders, bail orders, orders based on compromise or orders of withdrawal of case.”
The Court noted that the condition of recruitment under challenge traces its root to the above rule.
Hence, the Court ruled that it is in consonance with the statutory recruitment rules and dismissed the petition.
Advocate Bharat Shrimali appeared for the petitioners.
Source: Barandbench
