SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL versus RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL versus RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Active representation as Legal Assistants before courts does not amount to practice at the Bar required by Supreme Court directions for judicial service eligibility. The Commission's decision not to allow their candidature was not arbitrary as per Article 14, and petitioners are eligible to appear at ensuing examination due to amended rules, but reopening the selection process is unwarranted.

Parties
Petitioner: Sunil Kumar Goyal; Respondent: Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Service Recruitment, Eligibility Criteria, Article 14
Service Law Constitutional Law Judicial Service Recruitment Eligibility Criteria Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunil Kumar Goyal

Petitioner

Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representing as Legal Assistants satisfies the three years practice at Bar prerequisite for judicial service appointment
  2. 2 Whether cancellation of candidature for non-completion of three years practice was arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Active representation as Legal Assistants before courts does not amount to practice at the Bar required by Supreme Court directions for judicial service eligibility. The Commission's decision not to allow their candidature was not arbitrary as per Article 14, and petitioners are eligible to appear at ensuing examination due to amended rules, but reopening the selection process is unwarranted.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions dismissed
  • No order as to costs