In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has directed the High Court for the State of Telangana to declare the results and appoint qualified appellants, petitioners, and intervenors as District Judges (Entry Level) in the Telangana State Judicial Service as a special one-time measure. The order, passed on September 26, 2025, in the case of Usha Kiran Kshatri and Ors. Etc. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 11018-11019 of 2024 and connected matters), comes without unsettling the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023.
The batch of civil appeals, special leave petitions (SLPs), and a connected writ petition challenged judgments of the Telangana High Court dated December 27, 2023, May 2, 2024, and May 3, 2024. These High Court orders had dismissed writ petitions filed by advocates whose candidatures for District Judge posts were rejected for not meeting the eligibility criterion under Rule 5(5.1)(a) of the 2023 Rules, which requires seven years of practice as an advocate in the High Court for the State of Telangana or courts under its control.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from a recruitment notification issued by the State of Telangana on April 12, 2023, inviting applications for 11 posts of District Judge (Entry Level). The notification initially allowed advocates with seven years of practice in any High Court or subordinate courts. However, on June 10, 2023, the State introduced the 2023 Rules with retrospective effect from January 1, 2023, superseding the earlier 2017 Rules. The new rules defined “High Court” specifically as the High Court for the State of Telangana (effective from June 2, 2014), effectively excluding advocates practicing outside Telangana.
The appellants and petitioners, who had applied in April 2023 and claimed to possess the requisite qualifications, found their names in a rejection list issued by the High Court Registrar on July 3, 2023. They approached the Telangana High Court, which granted interim relief allowing them to appear in the written examination on July 22-23, 2023. Many qualified in the exams and were called for viva-voce interviews.
However, the High Court ultimately dismissed their writ petitions, holding that:
- The 2023 Rules do not contravene Article 233 of the Constitution.
- The rules apply retrospectively.
- “High Court” refers only to the Telangana High Court, not others.
- The petitioners lacked seven years of practice in Telangana courts, making the rules non-discriminatory under Article 14.
A connected writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 489/2024) sought to quash similar eligibility criteria for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts, requiring enrollment with a Telangana Bar Association. The Supreme Court had permitted these petitioners to participate in the recruitment process via an interim order on August 6, 2024.
Supreme Court’s Decision
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard arguments from all parties, including senior counsel for the appellants, petitioners, intervenors, the High Court, and the State. Multiple precedents were cited, but the Court reserved judgment and suggested alternatives to the High Court.
In response, the High Court filed additional submissions on August 28, 2025, indicating no objection to appointing the qualified candidates as an exceptional case. Accepting this stand, the Supreme Court directed:
- The High Court to declare results, verify credentials/antecedents, and issue appointment letters to suitable candidates within two months.
- Appointments are a special measure, confined to these facts, and not a precedent.
- Appointees will not claim arrears of monetary benefits; their seniority will be based on appointment dates, ranking below those already appointed.
- Similar directions apply to the writ petitioners for Civil Judge posts.
The Court kept all questions of law open and disposed of the matters without costs.
Implications
This ruling provides relief to the affected advocates, many of whom had cleared the exams but were barred due to the restrictive interpretation of practice requirements. It highlights the Supreme Court’s pragmatic approach in balancing recruitment rules with equity in exceptional circumstances. However, it leaves broader questions on the validity of state-specific eligibility criteria under Articles 14 and 233 unresolved for future adjudication.
The judgment underscores ongoing debates on judicial recruitment reforms, ensuring merit while addressing regional practice mandates.
Case Details: Usha Kiran Kshatri and Ors. Etc. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 11018-11019 of 2024 and connected matters)
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 