Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Rule 18 Of UP Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975 Prescribing Minimum Qualification (45% Aggregate) For All Categories

"This is evident from the fact that since 2012, from a total of 75 vacancies advertised for the category of scheduled castes for Higher Judicial Services, 73 are still vacant and are being carried forward," the SLP had stated.

While dismissing the plea that challenged the advertisement dated January 18, 2021, for Direct Recruitment to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, 2020, and seeking directions to amend the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975 in accordance with recommendations of "Justice Shetty Commission" on rules for recruitment to higher judicial services, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli remarked,

"Let someone else challenge it. Not at your behest. Dismissed."

Senior Advocate Ashok Kumar Sharma appeared for Samvidhan Bachao Trust.

Preferred by Samvidhan Bachao Trust and filed through Advocate on Record Vikalp Mudgal and Advocate Kshitij Mudgal, the Special Leave Petition had stated that in light of the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, Rule 18 of the 1975 Rules was manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable being ultra vires of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 335 of the Constitution, as it did not prescribe lower minimum qualification (than that for General Category) for Reserved category candidates.

Arguing that the reserved category candidates ought to be given relaxation and preference in the matters of recruitment and promotion since such candidates were deprived of equal opportunities and belonged to backward areas and communities which have faced socio economic difficulties, the Trust averred that,

"Rigorous provisions of Rule 18 of the 1975 Rules read with Appendix G to the 1975 Rules pertaining to recruitment to Higher Judicial Services, the backward class of Scheduled Castes have been suffering since 2012, as despite being meritorious within their category, the candidates are not found eligible due to blanket threshold set out in the 1975 Rules."

Assailing the High Court's judgement, the petition contended that the High Court erroneously treated the petitioner's case to be service matter challenging the appointment of an officer instead of public interest litigation.

The High Court erred in relying upon the judgments passed by the Top Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v Dhobei Sahoo and Ors and Hari Bansh Lal v Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors, SLP also stated.

Case Title: Samvidhan Bachao Trust and Anr v. State of UP and Anr

Also Read: No Recommendation In Justice Shetty Commission To Grant Advance Increments To District Judges Possessing PG Degree: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Click Here to Read/ Download Petition