AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.H. Marlapalle, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard by consent.
The Petitioner has passed his LL.B. Examination held in April-May, 2004 from the Amravati University, the result whereof was declared on 3rd July, 2004. The petitioner passed the said Final Year LL.B. Examination with 57.3 per cent marks.
On 4th July, 2007, the respondent No. 2 � the Maharashtra Public Service Commission ["MPSC" for short] had published a proclamation inviting applications for the posts of Civil Judges [Junior Division] & Judicial Magistrates First Class ["Junior Civil Judge", for short], and the applications were to be received by 3rd August, 2007. Another proclamation was published by the MPSC on 3rd August, 2007, for the additional posts of 175, thus, increasing the total posts to 325 and the last date to receive the applications was extended from 3rd August, 2007 to 10th August, 2007. The eligible candidates to apply for the said posts were divided in six different categories, namely A, B, C, D, E and F, and we are concerned with the eligibility qualifications laid down in A and B categories, which read as follows:
A] For Advocate, Attorney or Pleader:
Qualification:
Candidate should have practised as an Advocate, Attorney or Pleader in the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto for not less than three years on 3rd August, 2007.
Note: In the case of Public Prosecutors, their service in that capacity will be taken as practice at the Bar.
B] For fresh Law Graduates:
Qualification:
The candidates who have obtained the degree of law with not less than 55 per cent marks at the final year of LL.B. Examination in the first attempt within three years on 03rd August, 2007 and who is qualified for enrollment as an Advocate.
Petitioner states that after the result of his LL.B. Final Year Examination was declared on 3rd July, 2004, he received the provisional degree Certificate dated 12th July, 2004, and applied to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for enrollment as an Advocate on 5th August, 2004, and he came to be enrolled as an Advocate on 23rd August, 2004.
In response to the Proclamation dated 3rd July, 2007, the petitioner applied to the post of Junior Civil Judge by filling up the prescribed form on 31st July, 2007, and the said application was from the Category "B", namely the "Fresh Law Graduates." He appeared for the Written Examination on 22nd September, 2007, and as he was declared successful in the said examination, he was called for an oral interview which was held on 29th March, 2008 at Nagpur. He attended the said interview without any objection by the MPSC.
On 6th May, 2008, the MPSC published the Recommendation List of 155 candidates and the name of the petitioner was shown amongst the candidates whose results were withheld for administrative reasons.
On 16th June, 2008, a Show-cause-Notice was issued to the petitioner with a charge of furnishing incorrect information regarding his eligibility. He was, therefore, called upon to submit his explanation; failing which action as per Clause 5.4 of the prospectus would be initiated.
On 3rd July, 2008, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the Show-cause-Notice and pointed out that he had applied in the category of "Fresh Law Graduates", and as per Clause 35 contained in the Application Form submitted by him, he had furnished the following information:
35.1 For Advocate, Attorney or Pleader:
35.1.1 Registration No. : 3434/04
35.1.2 Date of Registration : 23-8-04
35.2 : For fresh Law Graduates :
35.2.1 : Date of Degree : 12-7-04.
35.2.2 : Percentage of marks at the
Final Year Examination : 57.3%
Despite the reply submitted to the Show-cause-Notice, the petitioner''s result was not declared by the MPSC and, therefore, he has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for the following reliefs:
a] Issue a Writ of Mandamus or an order in the like nature to read down the eligibility criteria as a candidate who had secured 55 per cent in Final LL.B. Examination in Session 2006-07 instead of 10th August, 2008, and
[b] direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner''s result for the competitive examination 2007 for the post of Junior Civil Judge, and
[c] quash and set aside the Show-cause-Notice dated 16th June, 2008.
It is the case of the petitioner that on 10th August, 2007, he had not completed his practice of three years as an Advocate and, therefore, he had applied under Category ''B'' for "fresh Law Graduates" for selection to the post of Junior Civil Judge. However, by the impugned Show-cause-Notice, the Commission has held that the petitioner was not eligible to apply either in Category ''A'' for "Advocate, Attorney or Pleader" or in Category ''B'' for "Fresh Law Graduates" and despite the same, he had submitted his application for selection to the post of Junior Civil Judge, for which he was not eligible to apply and, therefore, he was required to submit an explanation as to why he should not be declared ineligible for the said post.
As pr the petitioner, he is eligible under Category ''B'' � "Fresh Law Graduates", and at no point of time, he claimed to have applied in Category ''A'' for "Advocate, Attorney or Pleader." He further states that with reference to the last date to receive the applications, as per the Corrigendum published on 4th August, 2007, the last date to receive the applications was extended to 10th August, 2007 and with reference to the said date, he had not completed three years'' practice as an Advocate and, therefore, he was eligible in Category ''B'' for "fresh Law Graduates." In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the eligibility criteria with reference to 10th August, 2007 and as set out in the Proclamation/Corrigendum published by the MPSC must be read down to hold that the applicant, who had passed his Final Year LL.B. Examination in the Academic Year 2003-04, be treated as eligible, rather than examining whether he had passed his law examination within three years with reference to 3rd August, 2007 or 10th August, 2007, and if so read, he has to be treated as a Fresh Law Graduate and eligible to apply for the post of Junior Civil Judge. On these grounds, the petitioner prays for a direction to the MPSC to withdraw the Show-cause-Notice and declare his result. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar Vs. J and K Public Service Commn. and Another, .
The respondent � MPSC has filed an Affidavit-in-Reply by its Desk Officer, and it has stated that the Corrigendum was published on 25th July, 2007 and the last date to receive the applications for the post of Junior Civil Judge was extended to 10th August, 2007 and the number of posts was increased from 150 to 325 and, therefore, the candidates were required to possess the educational qualification and experience with reference to 10th August, 2007. In short, it is contended that as on 10th August, 2007, the petitioner ought to have completed three years or more of his practice as an Advocate, or in the alternative, to treat him as a Fresh Law Graduate, his result of final year LL.B. Examination ought to have been declared within three years with reference to 10th August, 2007, so as to hold him eligible either in Category ''A'' or in Category ''B''. As per the MPSC, the petitioner does not fit into either of these two categories and, therefore, he was not an eligible candidate for the post of Junior Civil Judge as on 10th August, 2007 and consequently, he has to be declared as such and the question of declaration of his result of the Competitive Examination, 2007, does not arise.
The moot question, that falls for our consideration is, therefore, whether the petitioner was eligible to apply in Category ''B'' � "Fresh Law Graduates as on 10th August, 2007" for the post of Junior Civil Judge?
Before we proceed further, let it be noted that the petitioner has scored 140 marks in the selection as against 118 marks scored by the last candidate as shown in the Recommendation List of 150 candidates who have been selected for the post of Junior Civil Judge and, therefore, if the petitioner succeeds before us, he would stand at Serial No. 91A in the said list, as per the result provided to us by the learned Additional Govt. Pleader in a sealed cover.
The impugned selection for the post of Junior Civil Judge has proceeded as per the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, and as amended by the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment [Amendment] Rules, 2003. The Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules [for short the "Bombay Rules"] have now been replaced by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 ["The Maharashtra Rules" for short], and the said Rules have been published in the Notification dated 25th August, 2008 and gazetted on 27th August, 2008 and, therefore, all the future selections for the said post shall be as per the Maharashtra Rules.
By the notification dated 10th December, 2001, Clause (iii-A) to Rule 4(4) came to be substituted, and subsequently by the notification dated 25th July, 2003, Clause [f] was added to Rule 4[4](iii-A) of the Bombay Rules, and the same reads as follows:
(f) Notwithstanding anything contained in preceding provisions, for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class to be made by nomination, the fresh Law graduates shall also be eligible:
Provided that the candidate is not less than twenty one years and not more than thirty five years (forty years in the case of candidate belonging to communities recognized as Backward by the Government for the purposes of recruitment).
Explanation.- The expression fresh Law graduate means a candidate who has secured fifty five per cent marks at final year LL.B. Examination in the first attempt within three years of the last date prescribed for submission of application and who is eligible to be enrolled as an Advocate whether enrolled as such or not.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the definition of "Fresh Law Graduate" as set out in the Explanation below Rule [4](4)(iii-A)(f) of the Bombay Rules is the question which requires to be decided, and as per the petitioner, he so falls if the term "within three years of the last date prescribed for submission of application" is read down and replaced as "within three years with reference to the year in which the proclamation was issued for inviting applications." The petitioner states that if he has passed the examination held in the Academic Year 2003-04, he would be eligible for any selection that is undertaken in the year 2007, as he would be a candidate who has passed the Final Year LL.B. Examination within three years with reference to the year 2007. He further claims that even if the date of reference for deciding the period of three years is treated as 10th August, 2007, he was enrolled with effect from 23rd August, 2004 by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, and in any case, as on 10th August, 2007, he had not completed his practice as an Advocate for three years and, therefore, he ought to be held as a "Fresh Law Graduate."
The Maharashtra Rules, so far as Category ''B'' � "Fresh Law Graduates" is concerned, provide a different provision regarding the eligibility. Rule 5(3)(b) reads as under:
(b) Experience.- Must have practised as an Advocate in the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto for not less than three years on the date of publication of advertisement; or
Must be a fresh Law Graduate who,-
(i) has secured the degree in law by passing all the examinations leading to the degree in the first attempt;
(ii) has secured in the final year examination of the degree in Law or in the case of candidates holding Master''s Degree in Law in final year exam, not less than fifty five percent marks;
In the above stated Rule of the Maharashtra Rules, the explanation or definition of the term "Fresh Law Graduate" has not been specified as to mean the one who has passed his law degree within three years on the last date prescribed for submission of applications and, therefore, the controversy, as raised in this petition based on the Bombay Rules, is, hopefully, not likely to arise in future in the selections for the post of Junior Civil Judge.
In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has passed his LL.B. Final Year Examination in the first attempt and he has scored 57.3 per cent marks in the said examination. The results were declared on 3rd July, 2004 and the last date to receive the applications was 10th August, 2007. The term "within three years of the last date prescribed for submission of applications" is required to be interpreted appropriately in the light of the object leading to introduction of amended rule. Effect of improper reading of said rule which results in defeating the purpose and object underlying amendment of rule is also required to be visualised.
It was quite possible that the petitioner''s result could have eventually been declared either on 4th August, 2004, or on or after 10th August, 2004, he could be called as "a Fresh Law Graduate." Therefore, according to the petitioner, the period of three years should be counted with reference to the date of his enrollment, namely 23rd August, 2004, and if so counted with reference to 10th August, 2007, he is a Fresh Law Graduate, as he did not complete three years of practice as an Advocate as on 10th August, 2007. Whereas the Commission has relied upon the Instructions below Clause 3.2 of the proclamations dated 4th July, 2007 as well as 3rd August, 2007, and the Clause 1) of the said Instructions reads as under:
1) The academic qualifications & experience acquired upto the last date prescribed for receipt of applications will only be taken into account in determining the eligibility of candidates for the posts and for further selection. Academic qualifications shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date on which the result to the relevant examination has been declared by the Competent Authority.
From the above Instruction, it appears that the academic qualifications have to be considered with reference to the date of publication of the result of the Final Year LL.B. Examination for the purpose of deciding whether the petitioner had passed his Final Year LL.B. Examination within three years of the last date prescribed for submission of applications. Based on these instructions, it is the cese of the MPSC that the petitioner''s result having been published on 4th July, 2004 and the last date to receive the applications being 10th August, 2007, or 3rd August, 2007, he cannot be held to have passed his LL.B. Examination within three years of either 3rd August, 2007 or 10th August, 2007. On this sole ground, the MPSC has held that the petitioner is ineligible as he cannot be called as "a Fresh Law Graduate" as defined in the Bombay Rules.
It was also submitted before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Instructions quoted above must be given a purposive interpretation, rather than going by the literal meaning of the said Instructions. The learned Counsel submitted that Clause ''A'' for "Advocates, Attorneys and Pleaders" and Clause ''B'' for "Fresh Advocates" must be read in exclusion of each other, in as much as, if any candidate, who appeared for the law examination held in April-May, 2004, and if his result was declared subsequently either in June/July, he ought to be treated as a "Fresh Law Graduate" if he has not completed a period of three years of practice as an Advocate on the last date fixed to receive the applications, and if any candidate so passing the LL.B. Examination has completed three years of practice as an Advocate, he cannot be called as "a fresh Law Graduate." It was further contended that taking into consideration the date on which the result of the relevant examination is declared, counting the period of three years is too technical and it does not serve the main purpose of providing an opportunity to the fresh law graduate for competing for the post of Junior Civil Judge and the purpose for which such a provision has been introduced in the Shetty Commission Recommendations and approved by the Supreme Court by its Judicial Order, is totally defeated.
In the case of Sanjay Dhar [supra], the Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Rule 9 of the J & K Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules "for purposive construction." One of the eligibility conditions as laid down by Rule 9 in Sanjay Dhar''s case was that a candidate for recruitment to the service must have put in at least two years'' practice at Bar by the date on which he submits his application for such recruitment, and must produce a Certificate to that effect from the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, he works at the Bar. Mr. Sanjay Dhar obtained the Certificate from the Registrar of the High Court of Delhi, as he was practising in the said High Court from October, 1990 onwards, though he was enrolled as an Advocate on 29th January, 1990. This Certificate was held to be invalid, as it was not issued by the District Judge. Subsequently, the said Certificate was also endorsed by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi on 17th March, 1993. Despite this, the Public Service Commission rejected his application. The Supreme Court held that certification by the Registrar, High Court of Delhi, and further endorsement by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, fulfilled the requirement of Rule 9 in its spirit, and it could not be held that the certificate originally issued by the Registrar, High Court of Delhi, could not meet the requirements of Rule 9.
The main issue, which was considered by the Supreme Court, was whether the certificate of practice furnished by Mr. Sanjay Dhar satisfied the requirement of Rule 9, and if so, whether Mr. Sanjay Dhar was wrongfully denied the appointment in 1992-93 examination, and the said questions were answered in the affirmative. In Para 14 of the said decision, the Supreme Court stated as under:
Rule 9 of the J & K Civil Service [Judicial] Recruitment Rules, 1967 must receive a purposive interpretation. Purposive interpretation enables ascertaining the purpose of enactment, the object sought to be achieved and the mischief sought to be taken care of or prevented. The object of the Rule is to exclude lawyers not in actual practice, and hence inexperienced, from entering judicial service. At the same time the Rule cannot be so construed as to create an anomalous situation by asking the District Judge to certify the period of practice of a lawyer practising in High Court and not in the District Courts, "based on his personal knowledge or official records of the District Courts" - as J & K PSC wanted the appellant to do. A literal compliance, if insisted on, may defeat the object to be achieved by the Rule itself. If an advocate is practising exclusively in the High Court, the District Judge would not have any material available in his records to verify the factum and the period of actual practice of any applicant. The Registrar of the High Court would be the best-suited person to issue a certificate in that regard and since Rule contemplates the requisite certificate being issued by the District Judge, the underlying object sought to be achieved by the Rule would be fulfilled if the Certificate issued by the Registrar is countersigned by the District Judge or the District Judge issues a Certificate of his own based on the certificate issued by the Registrar....
Relying upon the above stated decision in the case of Sanjay Dhar [supra], it was submitted before us that considering the date of result of the examination as the starting point to count the period of three years to decide the eligibility of fresh law graduates in isolation would defeat the purpose of providing an opportunity to such law graduates who otherwise do not complete the minimum three years'' practice as an Advocate on the last date prescribed for submission of applications. It was pointed out that even if all the students appear for the same examination, it may happen that the results may be declared on different dates, if, for some reason, some candidates'' results are withheld and declared subsequently. It can also happen that results of Summer or Winter Session of examinations of different Universities may vary and result in respect to any candidates also can-may be delayed. Exact date of declaration of result would be a point which would take a back seat while construing the eligibility Clause of permitting candidates having less than 3 years'' tenure either of practice or no practice, but having eligibility for enrollment.
If the result was declared on 4th July, 2004, as has happened in the case of the petitioner, it is possible that another candidate, who appeared for the examination along with the petitioner, and in the eventuality of his result being declared on 11th August, 2004, would be held eligible, whereas the petitioner would not be so held, despite the fact that both had not completed three years of practice and, thus, it will lead to inequality in law and, therefore, denial of equal opportunity as has been guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
It was further submitted that in any case, the petitioner has taken punctual steps to seek enrollment by submitting his application to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa on 5th August, 2004 after he obtained the Provisional Degree Certificate issued by the University on 12th July, 2004, and he came to be enrolled with effect from 23rd August, 2004. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concept of "interpretation for purposive construction" would be defeated in the instant case if the claim of MPSC is accepted that the petitioner is neither eligible in Category ''A'' for Advocates, Attorneys or Pleaders, nor in Category ''B'' for fresh Law Graduates. He would, thus, be excluded from both the categories, which is not the purpose of providing the definition of "Fresh Law Graduates", though he withstands all other tests applicable to the fresh law graduates'' category prescribed in the Bombay Rules, urged the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
On the other hand, as per the MPSC, in the proclamation issued by it, there was no ambiguity leaving any scope for doubt or a different opinion while deciding the eligibility for "Fresh Law Graduates". It was pointed out that the Instructions very clearly said that the period of three years will start commencing from the date of publication of the result and it will be counted with reference to the last date prescribed for submission of applications. The MPSC claims that the petitioner''s result was declared on 3rd July, 2004, and as on 3rd August, 2007 or on 10th August, 2007, he could not be held to have passed the LL.B. Examination within three years and, therefore, ineligible to apply as a "Fresh Law Graduate." At the same time, he was enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa on 23rd August, 2004 and, thus, did not complete three years'' practice as on 10th August, 2007 and was, therefore, ineligible to apply even in Category ''A'' for Advocates, Attorneys and Pleaders. On these grounds, the MPSC urges that its decision to hold the petitioner ineligible to apply for the post of Junior Civil Judge cannot be termed as erroneous or perverse, and if that be so, it cannot call for any interference in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the case of All India Judges'' Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , the Supreme Court had observed that in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years'' standing. Rule 4(4) of the Bombay Rules came to be amended by the Notification dated 10th December, 2001 in keeping with this requirement of minimum three years'' standing of an Advocate seeking to enter the judicial service. On 21st March, 1996, the Govt. of India passed a Resolution, pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, to constitute the first National Judicial Pay Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty, and the Commission submitted its report on 11th November, 1999. The said report was placed before the Supreme Court for approval, and the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, considered the said report, and with certain modifications, accepted and approved it. In para 32, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court stated as under:
...With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the judicial service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the judicial service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned amicus curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to be an advocate of at least three years'' standing. We, accordingly, in the light of 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, to be eligible to compete and enter 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.
It is clear that the Hon''ble Supreme Court was not in favour of continuing with the earlier requirement of at least three years'' standing for an advocate to enter the judicial service, and it intended to relax the said requirement. Hon''ble Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission that "it should be no longer mandatory" for an applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to be an advocate of at least three years'' standing and it, therefore, directed the High Courts and 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 to be eligible for competing and entering the judicial service. It is obvious that the Apex Court did not state that a fresh law graduate means a graduate who has not practised as an Advocate, and all that it intended to convey was a fresh law graduate means an Advocate who does not have three years of practice, for being eligible to compete and enter the judicial service.
In keeping with this mandate, the Bombay Rules came to be amended by the Notification dated 25th July, 2003 as noted herein above, and the Explanation below Clause (f) of Rule 4(4)(iii-A) of the said Rules states that a fresh law graduate means a candidate who has secured 55 per cent marks at Final Year LL.B. Examination in the first attempt within three years of the last date prescribed for submission of applications and who is eligible to be enrolled as an Advocate, whether enrolled as such or not. This definition as well as Instructions below Clause 3.2 of the Proclamation/Advertisement dated 3rd August, 2007 released by the MPSC must be understood and read in the spirit of the above observations made by the Apex Court, so as to provide an opportunity to talented advocates to enter judicial service, even though they do not fulfill the requirement of minimum three years'' standing.
In our considered opinion, the Explanation and the Instructions must be read down so as to be in conformity with the intention to enable bright law graduates, who did not have the minimum of three years'' standing and those who are eligible to be enrolled as advocates, whether enrolled or not, to enter the judicial service, and such talented law graduates should not be prevented from entering the judicial service by adopting a hyper-technical approach while considering the requirements of eligibility in terms of "Category ''B'' for fresh law graduates", as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar [supra].
While interpreting the provisions of the Explanation below Rule 4(4)(f)(iii-A) of the Bombay Rules and the Instructions in the advertisement, we must adopt the approach of ''purposive interpretation'' which will enable the fresh law graduates who do not have a minimum three years'' standing and have secured more than 55 per cent marks in the Final Year LL.B. Examination, to enter the judicial service. If the petitioner has passed the final year LL.B. Examination held at any time prior to April/May, 2004, say, for example, the examination held in October/November, 2003, we would not have taken a similar view.
Writ Petition No. 4308 of 2007 filed by Ms. Neena Bhatia came to be allowed by this Court on 21st November, 2008, and we held that the said petitioner had completed three years'' practice as on 10th August, 2007 and, therefore, was eligible to apply for the post of Junior Civil Judge from the category of Advocates with three years'' law practice, namely "Category ''A'' for Advocates, Attorneys and Pleaders." Ms. Bhatia had also appeared for the Final Year LL.B. Examination held in April-May, 2004, and the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University had declared her result on 7th June, 2004. She completed all the three years of law examination with an average of 60.89 per cent marks, and she had applied for enrollment with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and came to be enrolled as an advocate with effect from 30th July, 2004. The MPSC had withheld her result on the grounds similar to that of the present petitioner. The MPSC held that Ms. Bhatia did not meet the requirements of minimum three years'' practice as an advocate with reference to 3rd August, 2007 or 10th August, 2007. We repelled this ground and directed the Secretary of the MPSC to incorporate the said petitioner''s name in the list of selected candidates for the post of Junior Civil Judge, forthwith, and intimate to the Registrar General of this Court her name as a selected candidate for the said appointment.
In the instant case, the petitioner also appeared for the LL.B. Final Year Examination held in April-May, 2004; but the Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University had declared his result on 3rd July, 2004, i.e., almost after three to four weeks the Nagpur University declared the Final Year LL.B. Examination results and, therefore, despite the fact of obtaining the provisional degree Certificate on 12th July, 2004, the petitioner came to be enrolled with effect from 23rd August, 2004. Though the petitioner cannot be said to have a minimum three years of practice as an Advocate, at the same time, he cannot be excluded from the "Category of Fresh Law Graduates", if regards be had to the above observations made by the Apex Court in All India Judges'' Association case. We must adopt a ''purposive interpretation'' of the definition of "Fresh Law Graduates with less than three years'' practice", so as to enable bright law graduates to enter the judicial service. As noted earlier, the petitioner has scored 140 out of 250 marks, and had his result been not withheld, his name would have appeared at Serial No. 91A in the list of 155 selected candidates.
Even otherwise, in the instant case, the MPSC did not take any objection regarding eligibility of the petitioner while scrutinizing his application, and he was allowed to appear for the Written Test as well as the oral interview without any objection. It is only when the final selection list was published, his name appeared in the candidates whose results were withheld, and subsequently the impugned Show-cause-Notice followed. As such we do not find any fault on the part of the petitioner.
In the premises, we allow this petition and hold that the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post of Junior Civil Judge in response to the Proclamation/Advertisement published on 4th July, 2007 by the MPSC, in the category of "Fresh Law Graduates", namely Category ''B'', in keeping with the requirements of Rule 4(4)(f)(iii-A) of the Bombay Rules. We, therefore, direct the MPSC to declare the petitioner''s result for the Competitive Examination-2007 for the post of Junior Civil Judge, and we hereby quash and set aside the Show-cause-Notice dated 16th June, 2008 issued to the petitioner by the MPSC. We further direct the Secretary/Deputy Secretary of the MPSC to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the List of Selected Candidates for the post of Junior Civil Judge, forthwith, and intimate to the Registrar General of this Court the name of the petitioner as a selected candidate for the said appointment, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably before 20th December, 2008.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms, but without any order as to costs. Writ to go to the MPSC forthwith.