GANGA RAM MOOLCHANDANI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 17-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GANGA RAM MOOLCHANDANI 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
JULY 17, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969: Rules 8(ii) and J 5(ii). 
Higher Judicial Service~Recruitment to-Eligibility conditions-Rules 
laid down that candidates must have practised for seven years in the State 
High Court or courts subordinate thereto-Candidate with seven years' 
practice in a court not subordinate to the State High Court rejected-
Validity of-Held: Such a condition is not based on an intelligible differentia 
D , having a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved-Hence, 
Rr. 8(ii) and J 5(ii) struck down-However, judgment declared prospective in 
operation-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16-Rajasthan Judicial 
Service Rules, 1955, R. II. 
E 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling-Applied. 
The respondent invited applications for filling up the posts in the cadre 
of the State Higher Judicial Service. Rules 8(ii) and lS(iii) of the Rajasthan 
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 provided that a candidate for the said 
F post must have practised as an advocate for a period of seven years in the State 
High Court or the courts subordinate thereto. The appellant, who was a 
practising advocate in a court not subordinate to the State High Court, was 
selected by the Selection Committee and was placed in the select list. However, 
the Full Court did not recommend the name of the appellant as be did not fulfil 
G the conditions laid down in Rules 8(ii) and lS(ii) of the Rules. The ffigh Court 
dismissed the appellant's writ petition. Hence these appeals. 
H 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Rules 8(ii) and lS(ii) · 
were ultra vires as the same violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that Rules 8(ii) and 1 S(ii) 
992 
/ 
1 
y 
G.R. MOOLCHANDANI v. STATE 
993 
had a reasonable nexus with the object underlying the Rules, i.e. to secure. A 
the services of persons having krwwledge of local laws and sufficient 
experience at the Bar with a view to securing a fair and efficient administration 
of justice; and that if the Rules were held ultra vires, the decision should be 
made prospective. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1. For recruitment to the post of Munsif under the Rajasthal) 
Judicial Services Rules, 1955 there is no requirement that a person should 
have knowledge of local laws and regional language. If for appointment in 
subordinate judicial service, neither there is any requir~ment of knowledge C 
of local laws nor regional language, one fails to understand how the same is 
required for higher judicial service in the very same State. Thus the ground 
taken by respondent No. 2, that the purpose of framing such a Rule is 
knowledge of local laws and regional language in order to stand the test of 
Article 14 of the Constitution, is fallacious. The classification on which the 
Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 D 
were founded is not based on an intelligible differentia and the same do not 
have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved in framing the 
same. [1003-D-E; 1004-E) 
2.1. A lawyer is required to be well versed with the first principles of 
law for practising in any court and even local laws are based upon first E 
principles and the requirement can be met either by prescribing a written test 
incorporating local laws as well or in cases where there is practice of ta~ng 
interview alone, by putting questions in relation to local laws as well and in 
that manner the knowledge of a person in relation to local laws can be tested. 
[1004-DJ F 
J. Pandurangarao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, [1963) 
1 SCR 707, followed. 
Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab, AIR (1961) SC 816, referre~ to. 
2.2. There should be no interference with the law laid down in the old 
decisions merely on the ground that a different view is possible but the Court 
would be justified in interfering if the decision is manifestly wrong or unfair. 
Rules 8(ii) and lS(ii) of the Rules are ultra vii·es Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution and liable to be struck down. Therefore, the decisions rendered 
G 
by the Division Bench and Full Bench of the High Court are manifestly wrong H 
994 
--.-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A and if the law laid down therein is approved, the same would be unfa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.