BENCH AT JAIPUR vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar

Judgment

1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General.

2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Kailash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/03/2025

2. Heard. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of his candidature in the matter of direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge. The process of selection was commenced with issuance of advertisement on 09.07.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in fulfillment of requirement of Rule 36 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules of 2010’), along with the application, the petitioner had submitted copies of ten judgments wherein he claimed to have personally argued the matter. However, after scrutiny, a notification was issued on 14.01.2025, which notified deficiencies. The deficiencies, as pointed out in the case of the petitioner, were that three judgments are of a period beyond seven years from the date of submission of application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted copies of three orders passed [2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-3315/2025] in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Maheshchand @ Mahesh Kumar (Criminal Case No.421/2019, dated 23.08.2024), State of Rajasthan Vs. Jalaluddin (CIS No.3384/2014, dated 23.01.2025) and State Vs. Prabhu Kathat (Regular Criminal Case No.676/2023 (1304/2014), dated 23.01.2025). However, his application has been wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit ten judgments in conformity with Rule 36 of the Rules of

2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner having submitted three more judgments which were personally argued by him within the stipulated period, the requirement of submission of ten judgments, where the candidate personally argued, was fully complied with.

4. On advance copy, Mr. AK Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would point out that the judgments which have been subsequently submitted by the petitioner were all subsequent to the date of submission of application form, therefore, the requirement of Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 that ten judgments should be of the preceding seven years, is not fulfilled. He would submit that last date of submission of application form was 09.08.2024 and, therefore, the judgments rendered prior to that date alone could be taken into consideration and not thereafter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reply by way of rejoinder and submit that once the petitioner was granted opportunity to remove the deficiency vide notification dated

14.01.2025 upto 24.01.2025, the requirement of the Rule stood [2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-3315/2025] relaxed to that extent and, therefore, judgments rendered after the last date of submission of application form, but before

24.01.2025 satisfy the requirement of law.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties.

7. Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 reads as below:- “36. Submission of application.- (1) While submitting application, candidate shall furnish particulars of 10 judgments of the preceding seven years. He shall produce the certified copies of such judgments before the Main Examination, as prescribed by the Recruiting Authority. The Candidate is required to provide particulars of final orders/judgments personally argued by him, not being interlocutory orders, bail orders, orders based on compromise or orders of withdrawal of case. (2) Every application shall be accompanied by a certificate in the format as prescribed by the Recruiting Authority, from the District Judge concerned where ordinarily the applicant is practicing, as to the character and length of actual practice of the candidate along with such other documents as may be specified. In case the applicant is practicing in the High Court, the certifying authority shall be Registrar of the concerned High Court and if he is practicing in the Supreme Court, the certifying authority shall be the Registrar of the Supreme Court.” On an apparent reading of the Rule, it is clear that while submitting application form, the candidate is required to furnish the particulars of ten judgments of the preceding seven years. The petitioner has placed before the Court the application form submitted by him. The petitioner certified and verified that he possesses certified copies of all the ten judgments mentioned in the list, which have been pronounced within seven years preceding the last date of submission of application form and that these cases were personally argued by him and not interlocutory [2025:RJ-JP:10107-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-3315/2025] orders, bail orders, orders passed on compromise or orders of withdrawal of case.

8. Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 provides that judgments should be of the preceding seven years. The preceding seven years period, in the absence of any other stipulation, has to be read as seven years preceding the last date of submission of the application form. By no stretch of imagination, Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 can be read in the manner that judgment rendered even thereafter, could be taken into consideration. That is what is clearly reflected in the application form and declaration given by the petitioner himself.

9. The three judgments which were submitted by the petitioner subsequently to remove the deficiencies are those judgments, which are rendered after the last date of submission of application form, i.e., 09.08.2024.

10. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner was allowed to remove the deficiencies vide notification dated 14.01.2025 upto 24.01.2025, the Rule stood automatically relaxed, cannot be accepted. The purpose of giving one opportunity to remove deficiencies was to submit three judgments which in any case, must conform to the requirement of Rule 36 of the Rules of 2010 and not those which do not confirm to the requirement of law.

11. Therefore, no case is made out for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ RAJAT-RAHUL/14