R. Banumathi C.J. - These writ petitions have been filed, inter alia, for issuance of appropriate writ -

1. To declare Rule 5(b) of the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 to the extent which prescribes a Graduate in law and enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act under the Advocates Act, 1961 as the eligibility criteria for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) ultra vires.

2. To quash the advertisement No.4 of 2013 issued by the respondent No.3 for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

3. To reconsider the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.(S) 1928 of 2008.

2. Rule 5 of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 2004, which stipulates eligibility criteria for appointment of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), inter alia, provides that the candidate should be a Graduate in law from a recognised University and enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. An advertisement No.4/2013 was published on 6.1.2014 by the 3rd respondent for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and clause 2(A)(a) thereof stipulates that a Law Graduate from a recognised University and enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to participate in the examination. The petitioners, who are working as Assistants in the Jharkhand High Court and who have obtained law degree after entering service as Assistants have challenged the vires of Rule 5(b).

3. In the case of All India Judges Association And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 288] , Honble Supreme Court expressed the view that Judicial service is not service in the sense of employment and that they exercise sovereign judicial power of State deciding questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants and the Judicial Officers must be familiar with the working of the courts system and the administration of justice and in para (20) held as follows:-

"Considering the fact that from the first day of his assuming office, the Judge has to decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers is neither prudent nor desirable. Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court-system and the administration of justice begotten through legal practice. The practice involves much more than mere advocacy. A lawyer has to interact with several components of the administration of justice. Unless the judicial officer is familiar with the working of the said components, his education and equipment as a Judge is likely to remain incomplete. The experience as a lawyer is, therefore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with confidence and circumspection. Many States have hence prescribed a minimum of three years practice as a lawyer as an essential qualification for appointment as a judicial officer at the lowest rung. It is, hence, necessary that all the States prescribe the said minimum practice as a lawyer as a necessary qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung in the judiciary. In this connection, it may be pointed out that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, no person is eligible to be appointed a District Judge unless he has been an advocate or a pleader for not less than seven years while Articles 217(2)(b) and 124(3)(b) require at least ten years practice as an advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a person to the posts of the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court, respectively. We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung."

4. Accepting the report of the Shetty Commission, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors.[(2002) 4 SCC 247] , has interalia observed in Para-32 that the condition that an applicant must be an Advocate for at least three years standing results in best talent available being not attracted to the judicial service as bright young law graduate do not find judicial service attractive enough after three years of practice and the Honble Apex Court directed the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their Rules to enable the fresh law graduate to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service. In para 32, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-

"32. In All India Judges Assn. case (SCC at p. 314) this Court has observed that in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an advocate of at least three years standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the judicial service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the judicial service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned amicus curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to be an advocate of at least three years standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges case direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the judicial service should be imparted training of not less than one year, preferably two years."

5. In the light of the above direction of the Honble Supreme Court, the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 was amended dispensing with three years of standing at Bar as the eligibility criteria and Rule 5 reads as under:-

"5. Eligibility : a candidate shall be eligible to be appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif) under these Rules, provided:-

(a) He is above the age of 22 years and below the age of 35 years as on the last day of January of the year in which applications for examination are invited;

Provided that in the case of a female candidate, or candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe there shall be relaxation of the upper age limit by 3 years

(b) He is a graduate in law from recognised University and enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 and

(c) He possesses sound health, bears a good moral character and is not involved in, or related to any criminal case involving moral turpitude."

6. The contention of the petitioners is that in the Rules even though the State of Jharkhand has abolished the provisions of three years practice as an Advocate, the clause in the advertisement that the candidates must have enrolled as Advocate under the Advocates Act is not in accordance with the direction of Honble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges case (2) and offends the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the decision of the All India Judges Association case(2), fresh law graduates are entitled to apply and the petitioners, who joined the service in the Judicial Ministerial Service as Assistants and having obtained law degree will be deprived of their opportunity on account of the stipulation that the candidates should be enrolled as an Advocate. It was contended that there is no intelligible differentia in making the classification between the two groups viz one is fresh Law Graduate and other law graduates registered as Advocate and there is no reasonable basis for prescribing a condition that a candidate should have been enrolled as an Advocate. It was submitted that as Rule 5(b) distinguishes between a person who is registered as an Advocate and a fresh Law Graduate and the same is without rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the said Rule, learned counsel for the petitioners made a prayer for reconsideration of the judgment rendered in the case of Rupesh Kumar (W.P(S) No.1921/2008).

7. The same issues fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Rupesh Kumar & Ano. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P(S) No. 1921/2008), wherein a Division Bench of this Court (vide judgment dated 22.4.2008) held that the decision in All India Judges case(2) only indicates that there be a prohibition for putting a condition of three years practice as an Advocate but it does not say that the State has no power to fix eligibility criteria namely the applicant should be an advocate enrolled as per Advocates Act and that it did not prohibit stipulating a condition that the candidate must be basically a lawyer. The Court also disapproved the contention that only because some States are permitting fresh law graduates to appear in the recruitment test of Civil Judge (Junior Division), that in itself is not a sufficient ground to find fault with the present Rule 5(b). In Rupesh Kumars case this Court also relied upon P.U. Joshis case (2003 AIR SCW 272) which reiterated the settled law that it is for the State or the employer to prescribe qualification and other eligibility criteria for recruitment and dismissed the prayer of Rupesh Kumar to declare Rule 5(b) of the said Rules ultra vires. All the contentions/points raised herein were considered and answered in the aforesaid case. Even though all points raised were already considered in W.P(S) No.1921/2008, since elaborate arguments were advanced to reconsider the judgment in W.P(S) No.1921/2008, we proceeded to consider merits of the contention.

8. In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled - (i) Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) the differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. If there is reasonable nexus on the basis of which differentiation has been made with the objects sought to be achieved by a particular provision, then such differentiation is not discriminatory and does not violate the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. The Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 have been framed by the State Government after due consultation with the High Court and it is expected that the High Court has duly applied its mind to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court both in All India Judges Association And Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 288] and also All India Judges Association And Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 247] . In para (32) of the All India Judges Association And Ors.(2), Honble Supreme Court directed the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their Rules so as to enable the Law Graduates who might not have put in three years of practice to enter into the judicial service. The Honble Supreme Court has only done away with three years of bar experience. Keeping in view the nature of solemn duties performed by the Judicial Officers in taking decisions on the question of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in para (20) of the case of All India Judges Association And Ors.(1), in consultation with the High Court, the Legislature in its wisdom stipulated the eligibility criterion that "a candidate should be enrolled as a Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961". In All India Judges Association And Ors. case, the Honble Supreme Court did not prohibit recruiting the candidates who are enrolled as Advocate, nor did it say to recruit persons who are not even enrolled as Advocates and had no inclination to enter into the profession of law by enrolling themselves as Advocate.

10. The qualifications for recruitment to any post are laid down in terms of statutory rule. It is for the State Government in consultation with the High Court to prescribe the required qualification for appointment on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division. Basis for differentiation evolved is within the domain of legislature and must be left to the wisdom of the legislature. It is fairly well settled that it is within the exclusive discretion of the State to prescribe the eligibility criteria; conditions of service and alteration thereof. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, UPSC And Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 42] , the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-

"25. The statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision therefor.

26. The jurisdiction of the superior courts, it is a trite law, would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same.

27. It is well settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post."

The same principle was enunciated in the case of P.U. Joshi And Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad And Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 632] .

11. The words, "enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act,1961" occurring in Rule 5(b) are very significant. A Law Graduate by enrolling himself as an Advocate take oath under Rule 15(2) of the Bar Council of India Rules affirming that he shall uphold the Constitution and the Laws and he shall faithfully discharge every obligation cast on him by the Advocates Act and the Rules framed thereunder. To be enrolled as an Advocate, the Law Graduate is not to be in a full-time salaried employment of Government or Corporation or private concern. By enrolling himself as an Advocate, the Law Graduate only manifests his intention to enter into the profession of law and thereby wishing to render services to the litigants and play an important role in the administration of justice. Thus, the classification between an Advocate and a fresh Law Graduate cannot be said to be without reasonable basis.

12. Referring to the duties of the Advocates being Officers of the Court, in the case of O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, [(2011) 6 SCC 86] , Honble Supreme Court held as under:-

"38. An advocates duty is as important as that of a Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. A clients relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system.

39. An advocate should be dignified in his dealings to the court, to his fellow lawyers and to the litigants. He should have integrity in abundance and should never do anything that erodes his credibility. An advocate has a duty to enlighten and encourage the juniors in the profession. An ideal advocate should believe that the legal profession has an element of service also and associates with legal service activities. Most importantly, he should faithfully abide by the standards of professional conduct and etiquette prescribed by the Bar Council of India in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.

40. As a rule, an advocate being a member of the legal profession has a social duty to show the people a beacon of light by his conduct and actions rather than being adamant on an unwarranted and uncalled for issue."

13. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate [(2014) 1 SCC 572] , the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-

"10. Lawyers play an important part in the administration of justice. The profession itself requires the safeguarding of high moral standards. As an officer of the court the overriding duty of a lawyer is to the court, the standards of his profession and to the public. Since the main job of a lawyer is to assist the court in dispensing justice, the members of the Bar cannot behave with doubtful scruples or strive to thrive on litigation. The lawyers must remember that they are equal partners with Judges in the administration of justice. If the lawyers do not perform their function properly, it would be destructive of democracy and the rule of law. (Vide Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi (AIR 1957 SC 425 ) Jamilabai Abdul Kadar v. Shankarlal Gulabchand [(1975) 2 SCC 609] , Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar [(1976) 2 SCC 291] , S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp SCC 87] and Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra [(1983) 2 SCC 96] ."

14. As pointed out earlier, to be enrolled as an Advocate and also for continuance in practice, the law graduate shall not be a full time salaried employee of Government, private firm, Corporation or concern. As per Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, "An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, Government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise, and shall, on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears and shall thereupon cease to practise as an advocate so long as he continues in such employment". By enrolling himself as an Advocate, the law graduate subjects himself to be bound by the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules and thus, has taken profession of law with seriousness.

15. In All India Judges Association And Ors.(2), Honble Supreme Court had only done away three years of Bar experience only with the intention that the Judicial Service must attract best talent and after three years of practice, brilliant law graduates find judicial service not attractive enough. By directing dispensation of three years experience, Honble Supreme Court did not express the view that the law graduates from every walk of life shall be eligible to apply. Any such interpretation would go against the concept of the Judicial Office and the nature of responsibility upon the Office and the views of the Honble Supreme Court.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the case of All India Judges Association And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 288] , it stipulates that there should be uniformity in the service conditions of all Judicial Officers in whole of the country and therefore, the eligibility criteria should also be uniform throughout the country. Learned counsel, Mr. Manoj Tandon, contended that in several States like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Chhatisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Kerala, Delhi, Bihar, fresh Law Graduates are allowed to appear without being enrolled as Advocate and in these circumstances, the State of Jharkhand alone cannot be allowed to have a different service condition than other States. The Rules of various High Court of the aforesaid States have not been placed before us and it is not known as to how fresh Law Graduates are defined and in such circumstances, the petitioners cannot challenge the vires of Rule 5(b) Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.

17. In so far as the contention that there is no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Rules is concerned, the object of the Rules is to draw best of the talents to be the judicial officers. The condition that a candidate must be an advocate is certainly has a rational nexus as a Judge is not only expected to be intelligent but has to be honest, maintain decorum of its office. It is an established norm that an Advocate is saddled with the duty and responsibility to plead the case of his client with sincerity, diligently in a dignified manner keeping in view the majesty of law and the decorum of court proceedings as he is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law keeping in mind that he is also an officer of the court. The professional ethics requires the Advocate to be fully aware that the judicial system of which he is an integral part, casts on him onerous social duty to maintain integrity of the highest standard and to desist from such acts and conduct which erodes the credibility of the judicial process, which is based on probity, fairness and impartiality.

18. The Advocate subscribes to the oath of adhering to the dignity of the ethics prescribed by the noble profession and the responsibility and duty to uphold the rule of law by his conduct in court and in public. The virtues of Advocacy motivates an Advocate into realisation that he has a sacrosanct duty to perform as an officer of the court of law. The condition of being an advocate certainly debars not only fresh graduate but also the persons who do not opt for profession of law as their avocation and pursue some vocation which exposes them to such environment which will be adversarial to their working as Judicial Officers. Having regard to the nature of the duties and responsibilities cast upon the Judicial Officers and Rule 5(b) being aimed at dealing with the solemn responsibilities performed by the Judicial Officers and having reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, namely the administration of justice, we find that there is reasonable basis for making a differentiation between a mere law graduate and law graduate enrolled as an Advocate.

19. The petitioner has failed to establish any clear transgression of the constitutional principles for declaring Rule 5(b) to be ultra vires. We do not find any substance in the challenge to the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. The Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 was notified on 31.3.2005 published in the Gazette on 4.4.2005. The petitioners are said to have entered into service as Assistants in the High Courts and in Civil Court of different districts of Jharkhand in the year 2007. Rule 5(b), the eligibility criteria "enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act" was challenged in the case of Rupesh Kumar (W.P(S) No.1921/2008), which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 22.4.2008. The petitioners must have been aware of the aforesaid judgment. The Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 is in force from March-April, 2005 onwards. Even though the petitioners are said to have obtained law degree in 2010, the petitioners have not earlier chosen to challenge the validity of the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. Only after the Advertisement No.4/2013 was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of Civil Judges, Junior Division, on 6.1.2014, the petitioners filed the writ petitions on 8.1.2014 and the petitioners have desperately tried to reopen the issues already settled in W.P(S) No.1921/2008. In such view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions imposing cost on each of the petitioners.

20. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) on each of the petitioners, who shall pay the cost to the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today, failing which the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority is at liberty to recover the cost from each of the petitioners in accordance with law.