ANDHRA PRADESH CANDIDATE WITHDRAWS SUPREME COURT PLEA CHALLENGING TELANGANA'S JUDICIAL ENROLLMENT RULE:

On July 14, the Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a special leave petition filed by a judicial aspirant who had challenged the Telangana High Court’s decision regarding her appointment to the state’s judicial services. The High Court had made her appointment contingent upon the outcome of a pending matter challenging the April 2024 notification issued by the Telangana High Court. This notification restricted eligibility for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to candidates enrolled with the Bar Council of Telangana.

The petition came before a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih. The bench noted that the broader issue was already under consideration before the Court and advised the petitioner to withdraw the plea. Justice Datta remarked that other similar matters were pending and would be taken up together. He assured that if the petitioner succeeded, the High Court administration had acknowledged the availability of sufficient vacancies, allowing for her possible accommodation. Emphasizing a broader perspective, he observed that a judicial officer must not focus solely on individual concerns but think about society at large. He cautioned that if such a candidate were to decide contentious matters in the future, questions might arise about her eligibility, potentially undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

The petitioner had challenged Clause 6(A)(III) of the April 10, 2024, recruitment notification issued by the Telangana High Court. This clause restricted applications to candidates either enrolled with the Bar Council of Telangana or practicing before the state’s subordinate courts. The petitioner, who was enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, alleged that the restriction amounted to discrimination based on place of residence or practice, which is prohibited under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.

Initially, the petitioner and others similarly situated had approached the High Court by filing writ petitions, which were later dismissed. Subsequently, they moved the Supreme Court, which, via an interim order dated May 17, 2024, allowed them to participate in the recruitment process provisionally. Based on this order, the petitioner was permitted by the High Court to appear in the recruitment exams. She cleared the preliminary and written stages and was later selected after the interview.

However, when the High Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions, it directed that appointment orders be issued only to candidates who were not petitioners in those writs. It was clarified that the appointment of petitioners would remain subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings. The petitioner, despite being named in the final provisional selection list and having cleared all stages of the recruitment process, alleged that she was being unjustly denied an appointment letter by the Telangana High Court Registry.