M. Radhakrishnan vs State of Tamil Nadu and High Court of Judicature at Madras

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.—Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishnan in person, who is a practising advocate of this Court and also the learned Government

Pleader for the State. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification issued by the Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette

Extraordinary dated 19.1.2007, prescribing therein the method of appointment, qualification and age for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division), hereinafter referred to as ''the said post''. The petitioner-in-person submits that while prescribing qualification for appointment to

the aforesaid post, in Column-4, the following qualification has been prescribed:

Must be a fresh Law Graduate possessing a degree in law from a recognized University as mentioned in Clause (1) above, who is eligible to be

enrolled or enrolled as an Advocate and who has secured at the final year examination of the Degree in law not less than an average of 50% marks

in case of open categories. In respect of the other reserved categories, they must have secured an average of 45% marks. Fresh Law Graduates

are those who have obtained the degree of Law within a period of three years prior to the date of notification.

The only challenge which has been canvassed before us by the petitioner is that fresh law graduates possessing a degree in law from a recognised

university have been made eligible, even if they are are not enrolled as advocates, but are eligible to be enrolled.

According to the petitioner, such a qualification goes against the very concept of a judicial office. According to him, a person who is eligible to

be enrolled may also mean a person who has not applied for enrolment, even though he may be eligible, but such a person has the requisite

qualification under the impugned rules to apply for being considered for appointment to the said post.

According to the petitioner, prescription of such a qualification is against the norms of judicial office and also contrary to the judgment of the

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . In that judgment, a

learned three Judge bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with matters relating to appointment in subordinate judiciary. In paragraph 32 of that

judgment, the learned Judges were referring to a previous judgment of another three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of All India

Judges'' Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, . In the 1993 judgment, it has been observed in paragraph 52, ""The legal practice

of three years should be made one of the essential qualifications for recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy"". In

paragraph 32 of the 2002 judgment also, the same insistence of three years practice has been repeated in cases of applicants for appointment to

judicial service. But in the same paragraph, relaxation has been given in favour of the State Government by saying, ""We, accordingly, in the light of

the experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges'' case, direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so

as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in three years of practice, but eligible to compete and enter the judicial service. We,

however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the judicial service should be imparted training of not less than one year, preferably two years"". By

referring to the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, the petitioner said that the intention of the Apex Court is that the insistence of three

years standing at the bar can be relaxed, but unmistakably, it is made clear that the applicant must have some experience at the bar. The petitioner

submits that following the aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that a fresh law graduate, who is merely eligible to be enrolled,

but has not yet applied for being enrolled, can also be allowed to apply for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

This Court finds that the aforesaid rules have been framed by the State Government after due consultation with the High Court and it is expected

that the High Court has duly applied its mind to the aforesaid question. We are also of the opinion that an applicant for the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) should not only be eligible for being enrolled, but must apply for being enrolled. We find that the said view which we have taken is

consistent with the advertisement which has been issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the aforesaid notification.

In these facts and circumstances, we clarify the said qualification by holding that the words in Clause-3 of Column-4 under Serial No. 9 of the

Schedule to Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, which reads, ""Must be a fresh Law

Graduate...who is eligible to be enrolled or enrolled as an Advocate..."" should be read as ""Must be a fresh Law Graduate...who is eligible to be

enrolled and enrolled as an Advocate..."". We are constrained to read here the word ''or'' as meaning ''and'' conjunctively and not disjunctively. We

are reading the said rule as above in order to make it workable and make it consistent with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. We make

it clear that the recruitment process may proceed as per the advertisement issued by the T.N.P.S.C. On 10.5.2008 and as clarified by us. The writ

petition is thus disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed.