SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL versus RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 09-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL 
V. 
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
MAY 9, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
Service law: Judicial service-Appointment to-At relevant period three 
years practice at Bar prerequisite for appointment-Claim for appointment of 
C legal Assistants in Government Department-They had not completed three 
years practice at Bar-Their plea that as legal Assistants they were appearing 
in the Court as lawyers-Cancellation of their candidature-Cancellation 
challenged-Held: though criteria of three years practice at Bar was not 
satisfied because representing Court for the employer would not amount to 
appearing before the Court as lawyer-However, in view of All !ndia Judges' 
D Association's case whereby practice was dispensed with and since Commission 
framed Rules to that effect, candidates eiigible to appear in ensuing 
examination-It would not be proper to restart the selection process-
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 14. 
Petitioners were working as Legal Assistants with the State 
E Government. Prior to joining the service they practiced as lawyers but 
had not completed three years practice. They applied for appointment to 
judicial service. After All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of 
India and Ors., (199314 SCC 288, prerequisite for appointment to judicial 
service was three years practice at Bar. Respondent-Commission cancelled 
F the candidature of the appellants on the ground of non-completion of three 
years practice. Petitioners filed writ petition on the ground that their 
candidature could not have been cancelled on the ground of non-
completion of three years practice in view of the subsequent decision in 
All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2002( 4 
sec 247; and that they had been representing their department before 
G the Courts and Tribunal like lawyers. Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: I. The petitioners herein admittedly did not complete the 
period of three years of active practice at the Bar. They might have been 
representing their department while in service before the Tribunal but 
representing the employer in a Court or Tribunal would not amount to 
H 
220 
• 
S.K. GOYAL v. RAJASTl-IAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
22 \ 
practice at the Bar and as such the criteria laid down by this Court would A 
not stand satisfied. 1223-E, Fl 
2. The rules were framed by the State pursuant to the directions of 
this Court in All India Judges' Association's case and thus as regards the 
question as to whether the petitioners held the requisite qualifications or 
not, the Commission was required to satisfy itself in that behalf on the B 
materials placed on record. Ex-facie the decision of the Commission is not 
so arbitrary so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of 
India. (224-D, El 
All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1993] 
4 sec 288, referred to. 
c 
3. Though in All India Judges' Association Case, Court had directed 
dispensation of three years practice but since it was categorically stated 
that before a Judicial Officer is entrusted to decide the fate of the litigants 
he must undergo rigorous judicial training of one year preferably two D 
years; and since the State of Rajasthan has amended the rules pursuant 
to the directions of this Court, the petitioners are now eligible to appear 
at the ensuing examination. (224-F, Gl 
All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India, 12002] 4 SCC 
247, referred to. 
4. In view of the decision of this Court alone wherein it was held 
that the High Court has committed an illegality in directing the 
Commission to dereserve the 11 posts although they were meant to be filled 
E 
up by the candidates belonging to the reserved categories, this Court 
cannot presume that the said 11 vacancies would be dereserved and the 
petitioners would be eligible to fill up the vacancies wherefor they be given F 
an opportunity to appear at the interview. [224-H; 225-A] 
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit 
and Ors., [2003] 3 SCALE 571, referred to. 
5. All other eligible candidates have been interviewed and select-list G 
has been finalized. It will therefore, not be proper for this Court to reopen 
the selection process and direct the respondent-Commission to take the 
viva-voce test of the petitioners. [225-B( 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 35 of 
2002. 
H 
222 
SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.