Subhash Chander Parihar @APPELLANT@Hash Rajasthan High Court

The instant writ petition has been filed by petitionerSubhash Chander Parihar, for quashing the order impugned dated 21.02.2018 (Annex.6) passed by

the respondent No.2 qua the petitioner and prayed that respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to take part in the competitive examination

in pursuance of the Notification dated 10.02.2017 for the post of Additional District Judge.

As per facts of the case, the petitioner after acquiring the qualification of LL. B. commenced practice while enrolling himself with the Bar Council of

Rajasthan with effect from 02.10.2004. At the time of filing of application form in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.02.2018, petitioner

categorically mentioned in the Column No. 7.3, in pursuance information sought from the candidate that where he is practicing at present, the

petitioner mentioned “Not Applicableâ€, but as per learned counsel for the petitioner, along with application form a certificate issued by the District

& Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, was enclosed in which it was specifically mentioned by the District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh that the

petitioner is ordinarily and continuously practiced in District Judgeship Hanumangarh from 2004 to January, 2016, but in fact thereafter also, he was

holding enrollment as advocate because term of enrollment was renewed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan up to 19.11.2017 but the petitioner was

appointed as Member of Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh on 08.01.2016Â where still he is working but he was having registration on the last

date of submitting application form.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on hyper technical ground as per certificate issued by

the District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, petitioner practiced up to January, 2016 but in fact he was holding his registration of an Advocate with

Bar Council of Rajasthan on the last date of submission of application form, therefore, he is very much entitled to appear in the competitive

examination for recruitment on the post of Additional District Judge in pursuance to the notification dated 10.02.2017 issued by the second respondent.

It is thus prayed that the order impugned may kindly be quashed and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the competitive

examination, which is going to be conducted by the High Court for recruitment on the post of Additional District Judge.

Per contra, Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently argued that the candidature of the petitioner has

rightly been rejected in view of Rule 33 (iii) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (Rules of 2010) in which the eligibility for direct recruitment

is prescribed. The aforesaid provision loudly speaks that the candidate must have been an Advocate for a period not less than seven years on the date

of submission of application form; and admittedly as per certificate issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, the petitioner was not

practicing lawyer on the last date of submitting the application form. Therefore, in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.561/2013, decided on 21.01.2013), the candidature of the petitioner has

rightly been rejected on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form, he was not practicing lawyer.

It is also argued that in in column No.7.3 of the application form, the petitioner specifically mentioned that it is ‘not applicable’ in spite of the

fact that he was to submit information of present place, where he was practicing as an advocate, therefore, on this ground also the petitioner is not

entitled for any relief as prayed by him in the writ petition.

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in reply to Column 7.2 as well as 7.7, reply was positive in nature, therefore, the

judgment relied upon by the respondents is not applicable for rejection of petitioner’s candidature.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, first of all it is required to be observed that every candidate is required to submit the certificate as

required under the law. Under Rule 33 (iii) of Rules of 2010 in which there is specific provision under Rule 33 (iii), which reads as infra:

“33. Eligibility for direct recruitment:

xxx xxx

(iii) must have been an Advocate for a period of not less than seven years on the last date fixed for receipt of applications.â€​

Admittedly, in the certificate which is said to be issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, enclosed with the application form, it has been

specifically mentioned that “He is ordinarily and continuously practiced in District Judgeship Hanumangarh from 2004 to January 2016.â€, and this

fact has not been controverted by the petitioner, more particularly, it is specifically accepted before the court that he was appointed as Member of

Juvenile Justice Board, and still working on the said post. In view of above admitted that that after January 2016 he is not regularly practicing as an

Advocate, thus is obviously not entitled to appear in the examination as per Rule 33 (iii) of the Rules of 2010. After considering the case of the

petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment, referred to supra, and admitted fact that other arguments advanced by the parties are not required to be

answered because the petitioner is not entitled for the post in question.

Consequently, there is no force in the writ petition as the petitioner was not practicing as an Advocate on the date of submission of application form.

The writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.