SASIDHAR REDDY SURA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 05-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 985 
SASIDHAR REDDY SURA 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10836 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 05, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK' MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Judicial Service - A.P. State Judicial Services -
Appointment - To the post of District and Sessions Judge 
(Entry Level) - Eligibility - Absence of minimum age C 
qualification - Effect - Appellant, though included in select 
list, not appointed as he had not completed 35 years of age 
at the time when the advertisement inviting applications for 
the post in question had been published - Justification - Held: 
Not justified - In the instant case, the relevant Rules provide 
D 
only for the maximum age limit but do not say anything with 
regard to the minimum age of a candidate to be selected to 
the post in question - Though Justice Shetty Commission 
had expressed its view in its report that only after completion 
of 35 years of age, a person should be appointed as a District E 
and Sessions Judge but the said recommendation has not 
been incorporated in the Rules framed by the High Court for 
giving appointment to the post in question -
In the . 
circumstances, the appellant, who had not completed 35 years 
of age at the relevant time could not have been denied 
F 
appointment to the post in question simply because of his 
being under age as per the recommendations of the Justice 
Shetty Commission especially when there is no provision in 
the Rules that a candidate must have completed 35 years of 
age for being appointed to the post of a District and Sessions G 
Judge - High Court erred in giving undue weightage to 
recommendations made by the Justice Shetty Commission, 
especially when the Rules did not provide for any minimum 
age for appointment to the post in question - Moreover, even 
985 
H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A Article 233 of the Constitution is also silent about the 
minimum age for being appointed as a District judge -
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial SeNice Rules, 2007 - Clause 
V - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 233. 
8 
In pursuance of advertisement published by the 
High Court of .Andhra Pradesh Inviting applications for 
appointment to posts of District and Sessions Judges 
(Entry Level) In the A.P. State Judicial Service, the 
appellant applied for the said post. He took the written 
examination and also appeared in the oral interview. 
C Though the appellant found his name in the select list, 
he was not appointed to the post in question for the 
reason that he had not completed 35 years of age at the 
time when he had submitted his application or at the time 
when the advertisement had been issued and also for the 
D reason that he had not completed seven years standing 
at the bar as an advocate. 
As the appellant was not appointed to the post In 
question, he filed Writ Petition before the High Court. The 
E High Court held that though the appellant had completed 
seven years as an advocate, he had not attained the age 
of 35 years at the time when the advertisement had been 
· issued and therefore, the appellant was not eligible to be 
appointed to the post In question and hence, the present 
F appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The relevant provisions pertaining to 
ellglblllty for being appointed to the post of District Judges 
G have been Incorporated In clause V of the Andhra Pradesh 
State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Upon perusal of the 
above clause, It Is very clear that for being appointed to 
the post In question, an advocate should have at least 
seven years of standing at the bar and he should not have 
H completed 45 years of age in the month In which the 
SASIDHAR REDDY SURA v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
987 
PRADESH 
Notification inviting applications for such an appointment A 
is published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The said 
clause does not provide for any minimum age and 
therefore, it is very clear that the Rules provide only for 
the maximum age limit but not for any minimum age. Thus, 
the concept of 'minimum age' for being appointed to the 
B 
post in question is not incorporated in the Rules. The said 
concept, with regard to the minimum age, has been 
brought only from the report of the Justice Shetty 
Commission. For the reasons recorded in the report of 
the Commission, the Commission was of the view that the c 
post of a District and Sessions Judge, being an important 
post, which not only requires integrity and intelligence but 
also requires m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.