SC upholds Telangana rule on 7-year law practice for district judge posts

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Telangana Judicial Service Rule, which mandates seven-year practice in state's courts to be eligible for appointment as district judges.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George, as a result, disposed of the petitions against a Telangana High Court's verdict.

The top court noted the high court's submission of having no objection to declare the results and to appoint such of the appellants/petitioners/intervenors who had qualified the 2023 recruitment examination for the appointment as district judges as an exceptional case without unsettling the 2023 rule.

"We appreciate the stand taken by the High Court and, accordingly, request the High Court to declare the results of the appellants/petitioners/intervenors and to proceed for verification of their credentials/antecedents.

 

"Such of the qualified appellants/petitioners/intervenors who are found suitable may be appointed by offering them letters of appointment, as a special case, as early as possible but not later than two months from date of service of a copy of this order on the High Court," the bench said.

The top court clarified its order was strictly confined to the facts and circumstances of the appeals and petitions before it and may not be treated as a precedent for future cases.

"Since the appointments are being offered acceding to a suggestion of this Court, the appellants/petitioners/intervenors, upon their appointment as District Judge shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of monetary benefits and their seniority shall be determined based on their dates of appointment, meaning thereby that those who have already been appointed shall rank senior to them," the bench said.

The dispute stems from petitions filed by advocates and public prosecutors practising outside Telangana, who challenged the eligibility criterion mandating practice within the state's courts.

The petitioners contended that the rule was a form of "domicile reservation" and was discriminatory.

The Telangana High Court had dismissed these claims, holding that the requirement was a valid professional qualification designed to ensure that judicial officers are well-versed in local laws, language, and court procedures.