1962 (4) TMI 137 - SC - Indian Laws

Rule Requiring High Court Practice for Judicial Service Post Struck Down for Unconstitutionality

J. Pandurangarao Versus Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission

The court held that the rule requiring practice as an Advocate of the Andhra High Court for the post of District Munsif violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the expression 'the High Court' in the context of eligibility for the post of District Munsif.2. Validity of the rule requiring practice as an Advocate of the Andhra High Court under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of the Expression 'the High Court':The primary issue is the interpretation of the term 'the High Court' in the rule requiring that an applicant must be practicing as an Advocate of 'the High Court.' The petitioner argued that 'the High Court' should be interpreted as any High Court in India. However, the court held that in the context of the rules for appointment of subordinate judicial officers, 'the High Court' refers specifically to the Andhra High Court. The court emphasized that the definite pronoun 'the' indicates a particular High Court, which in this case is the Andhra High Court. The notification's scheme, which requires applications to be submitted through the Andhra High Court, further supports this interpretation.2. Validity of the Rule Under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution:The petitioner contended that if 'the High Court' means the Andhra High Court, the rule is ultra vires as it contravenes Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The court examined whether the rule's classification was based on an intelligible differentia and whether this differentia had a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule.The court acknowledged that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it allows reasonable classification for legislative purposes. The object of the rule is to recruit suitable persons for the Judicial Service in Andhra Pradesh, ensuring fair and efficient administration of justice. The respondents argued that the rule aimed to ensure that applicants possess knowledge of local laws, which could be achieved by requiring practice in the Andhra High Court.However, the court found that the rule did not effectively ensure knowledge of local laws. The proper method to achieve this would be to prescribe a suitable examination or other effective means. Furthermore, the rule allowed advocates from other High Courts to practice in the Andhra High Court under certain conditions, undermining the argument that the rule ensured knowledge of local laws.The court also rejected the argument that attachment to the Andhra High Court or its disciplinary jurisdiction provided a rational basis for the rule. Loyalty and dedication to judicial administration are not confined to advocates of a particular High Court. The classification between advocates of the Andhra High Court and those of other High Courts was deemed irrational, as it lacked a nexus with the object intended to be achieved.Conclusion:The court concluded that the rule requiring practice as an Advocate of the Andhra High Court introduced an irrational classification and violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Consequently, the impugned rule and the corresponding portion of the notification were declared ultra vires and unconstitutional. The court directed the respondent to entertain the applications of the petitioners and consider them on their merits, without rejecting them on the preliminary ground of not practicing as Advocates in the Andhra High Court. The petitions were allowed with costs.