Territorial practice-based judicial recruitment restriction struck down for lacking rational nexus with selection purpose

A recruitment rule limiting direct entry to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to advocates practising only in Rajasthan High Court or subordinate courts for seven years was held unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 because the territorial practice requirement lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the selection object. The claimed need for local law and language knowledge was rejected, as those matters could be tested through examination or interview. In a separate candidature dispute, no individual relief was granted because the selection had substantially progressed and selected candidates had joined. Adverse strictures were expunged and the costs order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969, restricting eligibility for direct recruitment to advocates practising in the Rajasthan High Court or courts subordinate thereto for seven years, were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999, whose candidature had been rejected on the ground of salaried government employment, was entitled to relief after being held eligible for consideration; and (iii) whether the strictures and costs imposed against the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1999 were liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): whether Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969, restricting eligibility for direct recruitment to advocates practising in the Rajasthan High Court or courts subordinate thereto for seven years, were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The eligibility restriction excluded advocates practising outside Rajasthan though practising elsewhere in India. The stated justification of local law and regional language knowledge was rejected because the same State's subordinate judicial service did not impose a comparable territorial practice requirement, and such knowledge could be tested by examination or interview. The classification was therefore found not to rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Conclusion: The restriction was held invalid and Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) were struck down as unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1999, whose candidature had been rejected on the ground of salaried government employment, was entitled to relief after being held eligible for consideration.

Analysis: The appellant was held eligible to be considered for interview, but selected candidates had already joined and the process had progressed to a stage where quashing the entire selection was not considered . The Court limited relief to a direction that similarly placed candidates should be considered in future recruitments.

Conclusion: No individual relief was granted to the appellant, and the dismissal of that appeal was maintained.

Issue (iii): whether the strictures and costs imposed against the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1999 were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The Court found that the adverse remarks were unnecessary in the facts of the case and that the cost order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The strictures were expunged and the costs order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals resulted in invalidation of the impugned recruitment restrictions, partial relief to the successful appellant challenging the rules, no personal relief in the appeal concerning candidature, and removal of the adverse remarks and costs in the third appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A recruitment rule that excludes advocates on the basis of the State in which they practise must satisfy Article 14 by showing an intelligible differentia and a real nexus with the object of selection; where that nexus is absent, the rule is unconstitutional.

---