High Court Asked To Declare Results And Appoint Qualified Candidates In Telangana Judicial Recruitment As A Special Case

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a batch of civil appeals and special leave petitions challenging common judgments of the Telangana High Court dated 27 December 2023 and 2 May 2024 that had dismissed writ petitions by candidates excluded from the District Judge (Entry Level) recruitment on the ground that they did not satisfy eligibility criteria under the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. The appeals and connected petitions assailed the High Court’s interpretation of Rule 5(5.1)(a) and Rule 2(k) of the 2023 Rules and sought directions permitting excluded candidates to participate in the selection and be considered for appointment.

The Supreme Court disposed of the matters by accepting the High Court’s pragmatic suggestion and directed the High Court to declare results, verify credentials and, as a special case, appoint those successful candidates found suitable without disturbing the 2023 Rules. The Court emphasised that the limited relief was confined to the facts of the present matters and would not operate as a precedent. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We appreciate the stand taken by the High Court and, accordingly, request the High Court to declare the results of the appellants/petitioners/intervenors and to proceed for verification of their credentials/antecedents. Such of the qualified appellants/petitioners/intervenors who are found suitable may be appointed by offering them letters of appointment, as a special case, as early as possible but not later than two months from date of service of a copy of this order on the High Court. Needless to observe, this order is strictly confined to the facts and circumstances of the appeals and petitions before us and may not be treated as a precedent for future cases. It is also clarified that since the appointments are being offered acceding to a suggestion of this Court, the appellants/petitioners/intervenors, upon their appointment as District Judge shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of monetary benefits and their seniority shall be determined based on their dates of appointment, meaning thereby that those who have already been appointed shall rank senior to them."

Background

The dispute arose after the State of Telangana promulgated the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2017 and thereafter framed the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 (notified 10 June 2023). Notification inviting applications for District Judge (Entry Level) required that a candidate must have "been practicing as an Advocate in the High Court or Courts working under the control of the High Court for not less than 7 years as on the date of the notification" (Rule 5(5.1)(a)), and defined "High Court" for the purposes of the Rules as the High Court for the State of Telangana (Rule 2(k)). The High Court’s recruitment list rejected a number of applicants on the stated ground that they were not practicing advocates in the Telangana High Court and therefore lacked the seven years’ requisite experience.

Aggrieved candidates obtained interim permission to sit the written examination and secured qualifying marks; later, the High Court dismissed their writ petitions holding that "the 2023 Rules are not in contravention of Article 233 of the Constitution", that the Rules operated with retrospective effect from 1 January 2023, and that the term 'High Court' meant only the Telangana High Court. The petitioners challenged those conclusions before this Court and also pressed a separate writ (W.P. (C) No. 489/2024) seeking quashing of a related eligibility criterion that required a certificate of enrolment from a Bar Association in Telangana.

After hearing counsel and reserving judgment, the Supreme Court invited the High Court to consider a remedial alternative; the High Court accepted the suggestion. Rather than decide the substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court kept all legal questions open but directed that results be declared, verification and antecedent checks be completed, and eligible petitioners be offered appointment letters as a special case within two months of service of the order. The Court made clear that appointed candidates would not be entitled to claim retrospective monetary benefits and that their seniority would be determined from date of appointment; the order was expressly confined to the facts before the Court and not to be treated as precedent. The appeals, special leave petitions and writ petition were disposed of on these terms; parties were left to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1169 Case Title: Usha Kiran Kshatri and Ors. etc. vs The State of Telangana & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Names not specified in the reported order; represented by senior and junior counsel) For the Respondent(s): (Names not specified in the reported order; represented by counsel for the State and for the High Court)