https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171768 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. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:13:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171768 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171768