Poosa Manasa vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the post of Civil Judge in Telangana State Judicial Service, as per the Notification No.282/2021-RC dated 06.05.2022, on the ground of age.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is aged 22 years and that she has completed Law degree and wants to appear for the post of Junior Civil Judge as per the Notification No.282/2021-RC, dated 06.05.2022, but the respondents are not permitting her on the ground that she does not have requisite age of having minimum 25 years age. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 06.01.2020.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the maintainability of the present Writ Petition and stated that the petitioner has not meet the eligibility requirement as laid down by the Government in the Telangana State Judicial (Service & Conduct) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules’), which have been amended, wherein the Rule 5 has been amended.

Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Rule 5 of the Rules, which stipulates the eligibility besides other criteria, which reads as under:

“Must have attained the age of 25 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years in the case of OC Category and 40 years in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes as on the 1st day of July of the year in which the Notification for selection to the post is made.”

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others AIR 2002 SC 1752. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Anitha and others v. The State of Telangana and others (Writ Petition Nos.23658, 23659, 5284 & 5285 of 2019).

A perusal of the above two Judgments show that the said orders were passed with regard to the requirement of having minimum practice of 3 years, but do not pertain to the prescription of minimum age of 25 years. Except stating that petitioner is appearing for the said examination, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to impress upon this Court as to how the Notification dated 282/2021-RC amending the Rule 5 of the Rules is arbitrary and unreasonable. Unless and until the petitioner shows that the Rule 5 of the Rules is contrary to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India, the prescription of minimum age of 25 years as per Rule 5 of the Rules cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. No ground has been made out by the petitioner which warrants any interference by this Court. Admittedly, the Courts or Judges require some maturity, experience and temperament to discharge their duties as a Judge and the same can only be gained by age. The discharge of duties as a Judge requires that the incumbent has the necessary maturity and experience to deal with real problems and face the day-to-day challenges and prescription of minimum age is intended to sub-serve the very same purpose.

Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition which warrants any interference by this Court as the amended rule of minimum age of 25 years cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.