Lawyers Practising in Other States Ineligible for District Judge Posts: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court ruled that advocates as well as public prosecutors practising in states other than Telangana are ineligible for the recruitment to the post of district judge in the state of Telangana.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar, was dealing with a batch of writ pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023.

The said rule deals with the eligibility for direct recruitment as district judges (entry level) and the same reads thus: “One who has been practicing as an advocate in the High Court or Courts working under the control of the High Court for not less than seven years as on the date of the notification. Rule 2(k) reads: High Court means and includes High Court for the State of Telangana with effect from 02.06.2014.”

The bench in its 33-page judgment observed that "no factual foundation has been laid in the pleadings with regard to challenge to the validity of Rule 5(1)(a) of the 2023 rules. Even otherwise, the rule has been enacted to ensure suitable and proper persons in the judicial service with a view to secure fair and efficient administration of justice and the rule making authority is competent to prescribe qualifications for eligibility for appointment.

The object of enactment of the aforesaid rule is to recruit suitable candidates to Telangana State Judicial Service who are acquainted with the practice of local courts in Telangana and have the knowledge of local laws" and said, "in the absence of any pleading, the challenge to the constitutional validity of a provision has to be rejected in limine".

On April 12, the government notification outlined the recruitment process, and the eligibility criteria, as per Paragraph 4, which required a practising advocate with a minimum of seven years' experience in the High Court or subordinate courts.

Earlier, a Single Judge had rejected the candidature of certain advocates and additional public prosecutors practising in Andhra Pradesh based on Rule 5(1)(a), leading to the filing of the writ petitions.

Senior counsel G Vidya Sagar, representing Standing Counsel for the High Court for the state of Telangana, contended that the petitioners were ineligible for consideration for recruitment to the post of district judge as the expression ‘High Court’ used therein means High Court for the state of Telangana.

It is further submitted that the condition of eligibility in Rule 5(1)(a) has been prescribed with the object that a person who is recruited to the post of District Judge is acquainted with the practice in the Court of State of Telangana.

The bench held that the ground of challenge must be based on a factual foundation, and to attract Article 14, necessary facts must be pleaded and said, "It is trite law that a party

invoking protection of Article 14 has to make an averment with details to sustain such a plea and has to adduce the material to establish allegations made and the burden is on the party to plead and prove that its right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been infringed."

The bench accordingly dismissed the pleas by observing that no factual foundation had been laid in the pleadings with regard to challenging the validity of the impugned Rule.

HC sets aside single judge order on HPSH

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of a single judge directing the district collector, Hyderabad, to file a report of action taken to protect the properties of the Hindi Prachar Sabha Hyderabad Trust (HPSH).

The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ appeal filed by HPSH.

Earlier, a writ petition was filed by S Narasimha Reddy, trustee of HPSH, challenging inaction of the district collector in not taking action in pursuance to letter addressed by the Advocate General and in implementing the judgment passed by XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in June 2016, thereby directing the trustees to handover Trust property to the Telangana Advocate General and District Collector with total accounts and resolutions within three months and accordingly a single judge directed the district collector to file a report of action taken on the issue.

The appellant would contend that it was initially not impleaded as a respondent. However, its application for impleadment was allowed and thereafter, the appellant was impleaded as respondent in the writ petition.

The bench speaking through the chief justice pointed out that “direction issued by the learned single judge by way of an interim order amounts to granting the main relief itself in the writ petition. Such an interim order which has the effect of granting the relief claimed in the writ petition itself could not be passed at the interim stage.

The bench accordingly set aside the order and remitted it back to the single judge for further adjudication.

HC faults petitioner for submitting documents

Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court faulted the petitioner for not annexing complete material papers along with a writ affidavit and granted a week to the petitioner to furnish a copy of the alleged representations made by him to the authorities complaining of alleged illegal construction.

The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Vadde Radha Krishna Murthy, who alleged that respondent authorities had failed to take any against Recherla Hareesh Kumar and another person who had constructed shops on the public roads in between two plots on eastern side of RTC Colony and on the western side of the Sindhura layout, opposite to each other separated by a road at Yellareddy Guda.

The petitioner contended that he had made a representation with respect to it. However, no action was seen forthcoming from the authorities. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that no representation was made to the authorities and that there was neither any proof of service, nor any seal of the office.

The court observed that there was no proof of representation submitted to the respondents and a mere declaration and allegation of inaction is unjust. The judge granted one week’s time to the petitioner to furnish a copy of representation and posted the matter to January 4.