Decided on March 05,1993

STATE Respondents


SETHI J. - (1.)AGGRIEVED by the notification issued by the J&K Public Service Commission, dated 18.11.1992 prescribing two years actual practice for being entitled to appear in the competitive examination for recruitment to the J&K judicial service, the appellants herein filed a petition in this court praying for quashing the said condition and permitting them to appear in the said examination notwithstanding the condition pertaining to the actual practice. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the notification did not suffer from any vice, legal or constitutional vide the judgement impugned in this Appeal. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the points of law raised and has not passed a speaking order.
(2.)WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
(3.)THE relevant condition alleged to be violative of the constitution being unreasonable, provides:
"A candidate seeking admission must be - ii. having at -least two years actual practice at the bar by the date on which he submits his application."
The conditions has been incorporated on the basis of Rule 9 of the J&K Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 which provides:
"A Candidate for recruitment to the service must have put in at least two years actual practice at the bar by the date on which he submits his application for such recruitment and must produce a certificate to this effect from the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he has practiced at Bar."
It is contended that after the coming into force of the provisions of Advocates Act and repeal of the Legal Practitioners Act relevance of the rule has lost its importance or significance. It is submitted that the persons enrolled as advocates are presumed to have gained practical experience on the basis of the curriculam provided in the three years degree (profession) course, granted to them before being enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act. It is well settled proposition of law that the employer has the option to prescribe any condition for enrolment to the service provided the said condition is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Rule 9 impugned in the writ petition has not been shown to be in any way either unreasonable or arbitrary. The requirements of suitability for a service or job be better not left to the convenience or choice of a candidate. It is for the employer to lay down the yardstick in accordance with the needs of a service or post and for the candidate to come up to it. Of course, the eligibility laid down should not be irrational or repugnant to the provisions of the constitution or law.
Viewed thus, we are of the view that the condition prescribing the two -years actual practice at the bar is a reasonable one meant only to meet requirements of the service and to secure efficiency in it. The mere fact that petitioners have obtained the Law degree after undergoing three -year course which also includes some practical training programmed does not render the eligibility prescribed redundant or unreasonable nor does it furnish any justification for doing away with it.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.