The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SYED AHMED .. Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIVEK JAIN The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA U/RIT PETITION No.4666 of 2025, ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Si Justice P. Sam Koshg) The instant Writ Petition has been hled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondents for not calling the petitioner to the interview for the post of Law Clerks on contract basis which was notified by the High Court for the State of Telangana vide notif,rcation dated 22.10.2024 declaring it to be illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

2. Heard Mr.Syed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel appearing on beha-lf of respondents.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.l issued a notification dated 22.LO.2024 inviting 2 applications from the aspiring candidates for the post of Law Clerks in the High Court for the State of Telangana on contract basis. The last date for filling up of the said forms was on or before 23.11.2024 by 5'O0 p.m. It is the further contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has passed 5 year law degree course from the Osmania University in June, 2024 and being found eligible for the said post the petitioner had apptied for the post of Law Clerk. However, after scrutiny was completed and when oflicial notihcation was issued calling for candidates to be interviewed by the Selection Committee for the said post the petitioner found that his name was not reflected in the list of eligible candidates in spite of having requisite eligible criteria as was prescribed under the notification dated

22.rO.2024.

4. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been fiIed by the petitioner. 3

5. Advance notice was issued to Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, who upon instructions submitted that perhaps the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for the reason that a-long with his application form the petitioner had not enclosed his 10+2 Certificate.

6. Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 however admitted the fact that the petitioner along with his application did hle the document to prove his age so also the document ascertaining that he is a Law Graduate having completed his 5 Year Degree Course from the Osmania University. However, he submitted that 1O+2 Certificate a-lso was essentially required so as to ascertain whether the petitioner fulhls the eligibility criteria as prescribed in Clause No.iii of the notification dated 22.1O.2024 prescribing the relevant eligibility criteria. 4

7. For ready reference, Clause No.iii of the notilrcation dated 22.10.2024 is being reproduced hereunder: "iii. The candidate should haue acquired a Degree tn Law from a recognized Uniuersitg, hauing studied a S-gear regalar stream afier comptetion of 70+2 years of schooling or taho haue studied regular 10+2 Aeors of schooling follouted by 3 years of regular curriculum in a degree course before taking a 3 year regular law degree from o college offiliated to a recogn{zed Uniuersity."

8. Also, for the sake of convenience, it is necessa-ry to reproduce the other Guideline stipulated in the said notihcation, which is required for filing of the documents to be attached along with application: "The prescribed proforma of the application is placed in tLe offrciat uebsite of the High Court t.e., htto:/ /tshc.qou.in and dulg filled in applications should be sent to the Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana, alorLg uith copies of releuant doatments in prooJ of age, category and educational qualiftcations, bg registered post with acknouledgment due, superscibed on it as "Application for the post of Law Clerks" on or before 23.11,2024, 5.OO p.rn' 5

9. In the application form, the petitioner had enclosed the Matriculation Certif,rcate to prove his age and in the column where the academic qualification was prescribed, ttre petitioner has produced the documents in respect of his qualifrcation of being a Graduate of BALLB having undertaken a 5 year degree course.

10. At this juncture, what is relevant to be considered so far in the present writ petition is concerned is whether the petitioner's claim for the said post had been refused by respondent No.1 only on the ground of the petitioner having not filed 10+2 Certificate along with his application form.

11. On a query being put by the Bench to the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 as to whether there was any Clause in the notihcation or elsewhere identifying the list of documents that were mandatorily to be enclosed along ) I IF I I 6 with the application form, learned counsel fairly accepted the fact that there is no such Clause or Guidelines reflected except for Clause No.iii and the other Guidelines, both of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. L2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that on a conjoint reading of the two provisions it has to be inferred that along with the application the petitioner was supposed to hle his 10+2 Certihcate as well. That in absence of not having filed the 10+2 Certihcate the decision of the Committee would be final, and therefore, the petitioner had rightly not been considered for being interviewed for the said post by the respondents.

13. The instant Writ Petition has been hled invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court where the element of judicial review available for this Court is to read the notihcation and reach to the conclusion'whether there is any prescription in the said notification so far as the 1 7 list of documents which were essentially required to be hled along with the candidate's requisite application form". L4. The notification on the basis of which the application has been made by the petitioner contains only 2 relevant Clauses both of which have been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. C1ause No.iii prescribes the eligibility criteria for a candidate who can apply. For the said post a candidate must have acquired a Degree in Law either of 5 year Degree Couse as a regular candidate or as a candidate who has done his 3 years Degree Course at the frrst instance; and thereafter 3 years Law Degree. In addition to both the said qualifications what was also essentially required was the schooling of the candidate must have been from a regular strearn i.e., lO+2 Certihcate.

15. So far as 10+2 Course is concerned, Clause No.iii does not anywhere mention the requirement of attaching these lO+2 Certilicate along with the 8 application form. So far as the Guidelines, which are further reflected in the notihcation and which again have been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs prescribing the requirements and also the last date by which the application form had to be submitted speaks of only documents in proof of (a) Age, (b) Category and (c) Educational qualifications. So far as the educational qualifications are concerned, the Post for which the petitioner had applied i.e., for the post of Law Clerk, the essential qualifi.cation is only a Degree of Law and for which the petitioner had in fact, supported his case by attaching the provisional certificate issued from the University. Other than this, this Bench could not find any Clause or indication in the application form indicating that the candidate has also to enclose the 1O+2 Certihcate as well.

16. In the absence of any such clear indication in the notification or in the application form that the candidate should enclose 1O+2 Certifrcate the same 9 should not be a ground, in the opinion of this Bench, for the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Law Clerk.

17. What strikes the conscience of this Court is that the tender age ofa Law Graduate, who hasjust passed out from the college and had applied to the post of Law Clerk for being considered as Law Clerk on contract basis in the High Court for the State of Telangaaa. At this tender age it cannot be expected of a candidate so young and who had just come out of his College to have understood the indications of the respondents that which is being canvassed by the learned counsel for respondents, unless it was exclusively reflected anlwhere.

18. Another fact that strikes the conscience of this Bench is that the petitioner in the instant Case being a Law Graduate with First Class marks, could he be found disqualified only on a condition or a reason 10 Lr'Y, which otherwise is not reflected anyuvhere in the Guidelines.

19. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not that the petitioner alone who has been rejected by the respondents on the above ground but there could be more number of candidates, who were also found to be disqualihed, on this very ground alone. Therefore, they would also have a claim to make and in the course of entertaining the instant Writ Petition it can give rise to opening of a Pandora's box 2o. In the opinion of this Bench, the said argument of the learned counsel for respondents may not be a ground on which the present Writ Petition can be closed or rejected apprehending other similarly deprived persons also approaching the Court. A11 that we can observe at this juncture is that the candidate, who is vigilant 1n approaching the Court promptly, 11 cannot be refused from being given justice apprehending opening of a pandora,s box. 2L. The other ground also canvassed bv learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that the interviews have all started and at this juncture entertaining the claim of the petitioner would create other practical difficulties of the nature where the scrutiny of this document would itself takes more than a couple of days as it has to be placed before the Members of the Committee and till that time the last date for the interviews may also get over. This ground again, in our opinion, seems to be a harsh ground that the respondents have taken so as to deny the petitioner his right for being considered for the said post.

22. Whether the petitioner herein is a suitable candidate or not, is not to be looked into by this Court at this juncture which would be exclusively within the domain of the Selection Committee. The petitioner who otherwise fulhls all the requisite eligibilify criteria 12 n however with no specific details of the mandatory documents, to be enclosed as is reflected in the notifrcation then the candidature of the petitioner on that ground a-lone cannot be refused is the opinion of this Court.

23. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we are inclined to allow the present Writ Petition directing the petitioner to forthwith, before 5.00 p.m. today itself, submit 1O+2 Certifrcate in the Oflice of the Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana, and subject to the scrutiny of those documents the respondents are directed to call upon the petitioner for interview to be held on 21.O2.2O25.

24. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be required to issue any further notice in respect of the date of interview subject to his passing the test of scrutiny so far as 1O+! gs.lificate is concerned. \ I 13 25- It is also rnade clear that the learned colrnsel for the respondents Mr.Vivek Jain is instructed to inform the Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana in respect of the order passed by this Court, and he may take steps without waiting for receipt of copy of the order to be cited so far so as to avoid further wasting of time.

26. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly atlowed No costs. I i

27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/i SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR JTBK-- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Reoistrar General, Hiqh Court For the State of Telangana' Near City Cottege: Charminar, Hyderabad - 500 066'

2. Reqistrar (Recruitment), High Court^Fot^the State of Telangana' Near City Coiiege, Charminar, Hyderabad - 5uu uoo' 3. One CC to Sri Syed Ahmed " Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 810212025 ORDER WP.No.4666 of 2025 yD L:,,' 1rc \\ ,.4., .,i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS / 4,/ J,/a