A Public Interest Litigation is filed by an aspirant in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging legality, validity and propriety of illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, biased & unconstitutional Amendment inserted in Rule 5 (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) & (7) for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division (Entry Level) with respect to ‘Method of Appointment and the Appointing Authority’ as well as Rule 7 (g) with respect to ‘Eligibility’ published in M.P. Gazette notification Part-4(Ga) in M.P. Judicial Service (Recruitment & Condition) Rules, 1994, of June 23, 2023.
This amendment is not only detrimental to the interest of a large number of OBC community students, but also detrimental to the interest of SC/ST community and General/Unreserved category candidates, the petition said.
The eligibility provision that, he has practiced continuously as an advocate for not less than 3 years on the last date fixed for submission of the application. Or An Outstanding law graduate with a brilliant acadmic career having passed all exams in the first attempt by securing at least 70% marks in the aggregate, in the case of General and Other Backward Classes category and at least 50% marks in the aggregate in case of candidates from the reserved catagores (Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes) in the five/ three years in Law, the PIL said.
This provisions is against the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247, the PIL said.
That the said amendment has been issued against the Constitutional Procedure provided in Clause 9 of Articles 338, 338-A & 338-B of the Constitution of India. Clause 9 of Article 338. National Commission for Scheduled Castes provides that “The Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Castes” Clause 9 of Article 338-A- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes provides that “The Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Tribes.” Clause 9 of Article 338-B- National Commission for Backward Classes provides that “The Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting socially and educationally Backward Classes.” While inserting aforesaid unconstitutional amendment, the respondent no.1 (the State of MP through Principal Secretary Law and Legislative Department) has failed to consult with the respondents no.4 to 6, which are Constitutional Body, the PIL said.
