Telangana Judicial Service | Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bar On Advocates From Other States In District Judge Appointment

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Telangana Judicial Service Rule, which mandates that a candidate aspiring for a District Judge appointment must have practised for at least 7 years in the Courts in Telangana.

The Special Rules in question - Telangana State Judicial Service Rules- were introduced in 2023 in supersession of the previous rules. Rule 5 (5.1) (a) of the 2023 Rules specified that a person seeking direct recruitment as a District Judge 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". "High Court" was defined in the Rules as "the High Court for the State of Telangana."

The High Court, in December 2023, dismissed the challenge, holding that the Rule was in consonance with Article 233 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George, on September 26, disposed of the petitions challenging the High Court's judgment without interfering with it. However, the Court clarified that all questions of law are kept open.

During the pendency of the petition, the Supreme Court had allowed the petitioners to provisionally appear in the exam.

On a suggestion by the Supreme Court, the High Court agreed to appoint those persons who have qualified for the 2023 and 2024 exams, as a special and exceptional case, without treating it as a precedent.

Appreciating the stand taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that such of the qualified appellants/petitioners/intervenors who are found suitable may be appointed by offering them letters of appointment, as a special case, within two months

.The Court clarified that the order is strictly confined to the facts and circumstances of the appeals and petitions and may not be treated as a precedent for future cases. It was 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.

Case : Usha Kiran Kshatri and others v. The State of Telangana

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 957

Click here to read the judgment

Appearances: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR, Mrs. Ritu Bhardwaj, Mr. Rajat Gaur, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR, Mr. S. Vinay Ratnakar, AOR, Mr. Kashapogu Suresh, Mr. Ayaan Thakur, Mr. Nabab Singh, Mrs. Divya Dokka, Ms. Aishwarya Sudhir, Mr. Shikhar Parganiha, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR, Mr. Agnish Aditya, Mr. Rahul Jangra, Mr. Goli Rama Krishna, Ms. Vandana Sharma, AOR, Ms. Karishma Seth, Mr. Himanshu Saxena, Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Mr. Ashish Chandra Singh and M/s. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR, for the petitioners.

For the respondents: Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR, Ms. Neha Agarwal, Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Mr. Sirajuddin, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhinay, AOR, Ms. Kirti Vyas, Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Mr. M. Srikanth Varma, Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR, Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR, Mr. B. Mohan, Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Mr. Akshay Singh and Ms. Sanjana Jain.