Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Jharkhand PSC
(c) The reading of paragraph 32 of the judgment does indicate only that there is a
prohibition for putting a condition of three years’ practice as an advocate. It does
not say that the State has no power to fix eligibility criteria, namely, the applicant
should be an advocate enrolled as per Advocates’ Act.
(d) In other words, the gist of the decision of the Supreme Court as contained in
paragraph 32 would only reveal that three years of practice cannot be the mandatory
criteria as the said criteria would not attract the bright young law graduates after
three years of practice to enter into the judicial service. The above paragraph
does not indicate that there was any prohibition for the State Government to fix
eligibility criteria as an enrolled advocate. On the other hand, it simply says years
of practice should not be insisted.
(e) In other words, putting a condition to the candidate that he must be basically a
lawyer is not prohibited. The wordings contained in the said paragraph reads
“We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India
Judges case direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend
their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in three
years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service” The
words “who may not even have put in three years of service” would clearly indicate
that three years’ of practice should not be criteria. On the other hand, any advocate,
who has got practice less than three years, also can apply.
(f) So, in the light of the said direction, the State Government thought it fit to frame the
Rule 5(b), which quoted as below:-
“5(b). He is a Graduate in law from a recognized University and enrolled as an Advocate
under the Advocates’ Act, 1961.”
As directed by the Supreme Court, this rule does not provide for three years of practice
as an Advocate.
(g) It is settled law that it is for the State or employer to prescribe qualification and
other eligibility criteria for recruitment. This ratio is decided by the Supreme Court
in 2003 AIR SCW 272 [P.U. Joshi & Others versus Accountant General,
Ahmedabad and others with Union of India & Others versus Basudeba Dora and
others]. The relevant potion of the said judgment reads as under:-
“Question relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts,
cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualification
and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and
criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy
and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject,
of course, to the limitation or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution
of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct
the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility
criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its
views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the
385