JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the High Court in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on the ground that he is not an income-tax payee. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was verbally informed by the Registrar that it was on account of non-submission of proof for payment of income-tax that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. It is stated that under Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 a candidate should be a citizen of India and must be an advocate practising for not less than 7 years. This condition is duly fulfilled by the petitioner. It is stated that under Rule 20 there is a power of scrutiny of the applications for interview, but the respondents were not justified in insisting upon the payment of income-tax as one of the conditions for selection. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 and much stress has been laid on the observations made in paras 20 and 21 (of SCC) : (Para 7 at pp 2334-35 of Lab IC) which read as under:- "It has, however, become imperative, in this connection, to take, notice of the fact that the qualifications prescribed and the procedure adopted for recruitment of the Judges at the lowest rung are not uniform in all the States. In view of the uniformity in the hierarchy, and designations as well as the service conditions that we have suggested, it is necessary that all the States should prescribe uniform qualifications and adopt uniform procedure in recruiting the judicial officer at the lowest rung in the hierarchy. In most of the States, the minimum qualifications for being eligible to the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class, Magistrate First Class/ Munsiff Magistrate is minimum three years practice as a lawyer in addition to the degree in law. In some States, however the requirement of practice is altogether dispensed with and judicial officers are recruited with only a degree in law to their credit. The recruitment of raw graduates as judicial officers without any training or background of lawyer in has not proved to be a successful experiment. In some States, however the requirement of practice is altogether dispensed with and judicial officers are recruited with only a degree in law to their credit. The recruitment of raw graduates as judicial officers without any training or background of lawyer in has not proved to be a successful experiment. 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 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 Art. 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 no less than seven years while Arts. 2l7(2)(h) 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 post 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. 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. As regards the procedure adopted for recruiting judicial officers at the lowest rung, in some States, the recruitment is done by the High Courts, whereas in others it is done by the Public Service Commission. Even where the recruitment is done by the Public Service Commission, there is a diversity of practice in that in some States, a representative of the High Court who is mostly a sitting Judge of the Court sits in the Committee as one of its members to interview the candidates. In other States, the representative of the High Court is not even invited for interviewing the candidates. In the latter class of cases, it may happen and in fact it does very often happen that none of those who interview the candidates are even qualified in law. Again in some States, the opinion of the representative of the High Court when he participates in the selection process is not given a special weight while in others, it is accorded predominant consideration. The decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav case ( 1985 (4) SCC 417 : 1988 Lab IC 1417) has already stated the correct position of law on the subject both with regard to the obligation to invite the High Court's representative to participate in the selection process and the weightage to be given to the opinion of such representative with regard to the suitability of the candidates. We may do no better than reproduce here the relevant part of that decision (SCC pp 456-57, para 31) : (at pp 1439-40, Para 31 of Lab IC)- "We would also like to point out that in some of the States, and the State of Haryana is one of them, the practice followed is to invite a retired Judge of the High Court as an expert when selections for recruitment to the Judicial Service of the State are being made and the advice given by such retired High Court Judge who participates in the viva voce test as an expert is sometimes ignored by the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission. This practice is in our opinion undesirable and does not commend itself to us. This practice is in our opinion undesirable and does not commend itself to us. When selections for the Judicial Service of the State are being made, it is necessary to exercise the utmost care to see that competent and able persons possessing a high degree of rectitude and integrity are selected, because if we do not have good, competent and honest Judges, the democratic policy of the State itself will be in serious peril. It is, therefore, essential that when selections to the Judicial Service are being made, a sitting Judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the State should be invited to participate in the interview as an expert and since such sitting Judge comes as an expert who by reason of the fact that he is a sitting High Court Judge, knows the quality and character of the candidates appearing for the interview, the advice given by him should ordinarily be accepted unless, there was strong and cogent reasons for not accepting such advice and such strong and cogent reasons must be recorded in writing by the Chairman and members of the Public Service Commission. We are giving direction to the Public Service Commission in every State because we are anxious that the finest talent should he recruited in the Judicial Service and that can be secured only by having a real expert whose advice constitutes a determinative factor in the selection process." On the basis of the above observations it is stated that it should be the practice at Bar i.e. experience of the candidate to legal profession, which should be the criteria. It has been stated that a person may have income which is taxable from one case alone while the other may conduct hundreds of cases of different nature but still his income is not taxable. Therefore, the proper criteria should have been the number of cases conducted rather the income derived there form. It is also stated that fee also differs from place to place. It is also stated that the respondents could have called the performance report from the District Judge which has also not been done. An objection has been taken that in respect of reservation, the Governor of Rajasthan has directed in the advertisements issued after 14-9-1994 that the reservation has to be made for OBC. 3. I have considered over the matter. An objection has been taken that in respect of reservation, the Governor of Rajasthan has directed in the advertisements issued after 14-9-1994 that the reservation has to be made for OBC. 3. I have considered over the matter. In a case where there are number of applications all the candidates cannot be interviewed and the proper course is of short-listing as provided under Rule 20. The criteria for short-listing has been fixed by eliminating those candidates who are not having the practice of 10 years and are not paying income-tax. So far as the question of practising for 10 years is concerned, the petitioner fulfills that condition. It is only the non- payment of income-tax by which condition the petitioner is aggrieved. It may be noted that the post of RHJS carries pay scale of Rs. 5100-6300 as given in the advertisement dated 4-1-1994. Therefore, the emoluments itself are paid in the figure which is much more than the limit of pay where the income-tax is paid by an employee. I do not consider that any illegality has been committed. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not exclude the considerations of scrutiny on the basis of income for higher judicial service. The general guidelines were given by the Apex Court. Even no effort has been made that in other States the payment of income-tax was not considered as one of the conditions for eligibility for consideration of the candidature of the candidates. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any illegality has been committed by the respondents in eliminating the petitioner from consideration for the post of RHJS. 4. The advertisement was issued on 4-1-1994 and therefore it is prior to the date of 14-9-1994 when directions for reservation were issued as such it was not necessary for the respondents to provide reservation for OBC on 4-1-1994. This contention also has no force. No case for interference by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 5. Consequently, the writ petition has no force. It is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******