The Supreme Court of India, in an order dated September 26, 2025, has directed the High Court for the State of Telangana to appoint qualified candidates to the posts of District Judge (Entry Level) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) as a special case, after the High Court conceded to their appointment during the hearing. The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, disposed of a batch of appeals and petitions challenging the eligibility criteria under the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023, while keeping the underlying legal questions regarding the rules’ validity open for future consideration.
The central issue before the court was the challenge to the legality of Rule 5(5.1)(a) and Rule 2(k) of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023, which effectively restricted eligibility for the post of District Judge to advocates practicing only within the state of Telangana.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a notification issued by the State of Telangana on April 12, 2023, inviting applications for 11 posts of District Judge (Entry Level). The eligibility criterion stipulated seven years of practice as an advocate in the High Court or courts under its control. The appellants, who had applied for these positions, had their candidatures rejected following the introduction of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023, on June 10, 2023.
The new rules, which superseded the earlier 2017 Rules, defined “High Court” under Rule 2(k) as the “High Court for the State of Telangana w.e.f. 02.06.2014”. Furthermore, Rule 5(5.1)(a) required a candidate to 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”. The combined effect of these rules was interpreted to exclude advocates practicing in courts outside Telangana.
A notification dated July 3, 2023, listed the rejected applicants, including the appellants, citing ineligibility under the new 2023 Rules.
High Court Proceedings
The rejected candidates challenged this decision by filing writ petitions before the High Court for the State of Telangana. The High Court granted interim relief, permitting them to appear for the written examinations held on July 22 and 23, 2023. After qualifying the written test, the candidates were also called for the oral interview.
However, in its final common judgment dated December 27, 2023, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The High Court held that the 2023 Rules were not in contravention of Article 233 of the Constitution, that the rules had retrospective effect from January 1, 2023, and that the definition of ‘High Court’ was confined to the High Court of Telangana. Consequently, it concluded that the appellants were not eligible and could not claim the rules were discriminatory or arbitrary. Similar subsequent petitions were also dismissed by the High Court on May 2 and May 3, 2024.
A connected writ petition was also filed in the Supreme Court by aspirants for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) who were precluded from appearing in their recruitment examination for not having a certificate of enrolment from a Bar Association in Telangana.
Arguments and Supreme Court’s Intervention
The appellants brought the matter before the Supreme Court through civil appeals and special leave petitions. After hearing the arguments from all parties, the Supreme Court bench suggested certain alternatives to the learned senior counsel representing the Telangana High Court.
In response, the counsel for the High Court, after taking instructions, filed supplementary submissions. The judgment notes, “the High Court has no objection to declare the results and to appoint such of the appellants/petitioners/intervenors who have qualified the 2023 recruitment examination for appointment as District Judges as an exceptional case without unsettling the 2023 Rules.”
Supreme Court’s Final Order
Appreciating the stand taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court issued its final directions. The Court requested the High Court to declare the results of the appellants and petitioners and, upon verification of their credentials and antecedents, to issue letters of appointment to those found suitable.
The judgment specified that these appointments were to be made “as a special case, as early as possible but not later than two months from date of service of a copy of this order on the High Court.”
The Court issued several important clarifications. It stated, “this order is strictly confined to the facts and circumstances of the appeals and petitions before us and may not be treated as a precedent for future cases.” It further clarified that the newly appointed judges “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.”
A similar direction was issued for the writ petitioners who were aspiring to be appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Crucially, the Court concluded by stating, “Needless to observe, all question(s) of law raised before us is/are kept open.” The civil appeals, special leave petitions, and the writ petition were disposed of on these terms, with parties bearing their own costs.
