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) of the 2023 Rules, 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.
Source: Barandbench
