Rule requiring judicial aspirants to have practiced in Maharashtra valid: Bombay HC

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has upheld a rule requiring a judicial aspirant to have practiced at the High Court or any subordinate court in Maharashtra for at least three years..The Bench of Justices RM Savant and Revati Mohite-Dere held that Rule 5(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 is not in violation of an individual’s right to equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution..Rule 5(3)(d), which states that aspirants should also be sufficiently proficient in Marathi, has also been reiterated as being valid..The Bench was hearing a petition filed by Shobit Gaur, who was shortlisted for appointment as a civil judge, but was later deemed “not suitable” on the ground that he had not practiced in Maharashtra for the minimum period prescribed under Rule 5(3)(b)..Gaur completed his law from Bhartiya Vidyapeeth, Pune in 2010, and thereafter enrolled himself with the Bar Council of Delhi as an advocate in the same year. He had been practicing as an advocate in the courts in Delhi..After being deemed unsuitable for appointment, Gaur initially challenged the basis for his non-appointment before the Supreme Court, which took the view that the Bombay High Court should hear the matter..The Rules were challenged on the grounds that they were discriminatory and favoured those advocates that practiced in Maharashtra over those practicing elsewhere..The Bench, however, noted that the challenge did not contain any material to show how the Rule in question was discriminatory. It noted,.“A reading of the grounds comprised in paragraphs 11(a) to 11(h) indicate that they are vague and do not contain any material on the basis of which the allegation of discrimination is sought to be brought home. As indicated above, the prayer clause does not contain any prayer for declaration that the said Rules 5(3)(b) and 2(f) are unconstitutional.”.It therefore proceed to dismiss the petition on the ground of absence of pleadings..Though it came to the above conclusion, the Bench decided to consider the challenge on merits. It held that Rule 5(3)(b) was put in place so as to recruit suitable candidates to the subordinate judiciary in Maharashtra, so as to provide efficient administration of justice in the state..The Court went on to test the validity of the Rules under Article 14 of the Constitution and ruled that they were not violative of the same, as they satisfied the principle of intelligible differentia..The principle tests whether there is a reasonable nexus between the basis on which a classification is made and the object that such classification seeks to achieve..Insofar as the requirement to be proficient in Marathi is concerned, the Bench observed that the Law Commission, in its 118th Report, had recognized the importance of the knowledge of the local language for judges..Further, the Court placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Prashant P Giri and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein the Marathi speaking rule was upheld..Another contention raised by the petitioner was that having been selected by the respondents they were now estopped from rejecting him. This was also rejected by the Bench..“That merely because the name of the Petitioner appears in the select list does not create any indefeasible right in him for being appointed.”.The Bench added that since the petitioner had been deemed unsuitable on the grounds that he did not satisfy a requirement under service rules, the question of legitimate expectation and estoppel did not apply..Read the order