Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 504 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-25

GOVIND MATHUR, JAISHREE THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Notification dated 25.1.2010 by which there is an amendment made to the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Qualification and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members of the Board) Rules, 1971. 2. The petitioner is an advocate by profession and was enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan in the year 1982. He practiced at Sri Ganganagar in the District & Sessions Court as also in the Revenue Courts and in 1996, he shifted his practice to Ajmer as an Advocate appearing before the Board of Revenue. The respondent State issued a notice inviting applications from eligible . Advocates for filling up vacancies of Members of the Board of Revenue under the Rules of 1971. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his application along with supporting documents. However, as per the amended Rules, the petitioner was not qualified to be selected for the said post since he had not attained the age of 54 years. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the amendment made to the Rules of 1971 wherein the minimum age of 50 years as provided under the Rules of 1971 has been amended by the impugned Notification dated 25.1.2010 to read as 54 years. 3. It is contended by Mr. Abhinav Jain, counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Notification dated 25.1.2010 in relation to the appointments from the category of Advocates is illegal and ultra vires and deprives him of an opportunity to apply for the said post. It is argued that there is no rationale behind increasing the age requirement from 50 years to 54 years as originally the rule prescribed that any person who is eligible to become a Judge of the High Court was also eligible to become a Member of the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Legal Aid & v. Bar Council of India & Anr, AIR 1995 SC 691 , in which the rule debarring the person who have completed 45 years of age of entering into the profession was struck down by the Apex Court. 4. 4. The State has filed its reply and the stand taken therein is that "it is a prerogative of the State to amend the relevant provisions and the State Government is fully competent to take a policy decision in such matters and make just and necessary amendments." It is also argued that the amendment to the rule vide Notification dated 25.1.2010 is legal and valid and has been made in order to attract more experienced person into the Board. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Qualification and Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members of the Board) Rules, 1971( for short 'the Rules of 1971') prescribed the qualification of a person for appointment and conditions of services of the Chairman and Member of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. Rule 4 of the rules of 1971 specified as under:- "4. Qualification for appointment as member.- A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of the Board unless he is- (a) a member of the Indian Administrative Service borne on the Rajasthan Cadre and has served for at least twelve years in the service or (b) a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court; or (c) an advocate qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court." 7. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1971 specified appointment of Member from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and Advocates, in which sub-rule (5) prescribed the qualification for appointment of Advocates. Rule 6(5) of the Rules of 1971 specified as under:- "6(5) In making from amongst the Advocates fulfilling the qualifications prescribed in clause (c) of rule 4, the Committee shall have regard to the candidate's- (a) Knowledge of revenue laws and revenue Administration of the State; and (b) experience in conducting revenue cases, before judicial and revenue courts of the State. (c) the method of selection of a member under this rule for making recommendation to the Government shall be determined by the Committee." 8. On 22.9.2001 vide Notification No. F.6(48)(Rev.)/2001/54 dated 22.9.2001, Rule 4 of the Rules of 1971 . (c) the method of selection of a member under this rule for making recommendation to the Government shall be determined by the Committee." 8. On 22.9.2001 vide Notification No. F.6(48)(Rev.)/2001/54 dated 22.9.2001, Rule 4 of the Rules of 1971 . was amended and existing clause 4(c) of the Rules of 1971 was substituted by the following:- "(c) an advocate qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court and have completed 50 years of age on 1st January of the year in which appointment is made." (emphasis supplied.) 9. Amendment was also made in rule 14 to include the term of the office of Member of the Board appointed under rule applicable to Advocates prescribing the term to be four years or 60 years of age whichever is earlier. The amendment to the Rule 4(c) stayed in effect till the year 2010 when, by the impugned Notification dated 25.1.2010 and the expression "50 years" has been substituted with the words "54 years" of age. Meaning thereby, the candidate from Advocate category have to have a minimum of 54 years of age to be able to apply for the said post. 10. A perusal of Rules of 1971 as initially framed reflects that the only qualification prescribed for appointment of an Advocate as Member of the Board of Revenue was that an Advocate would have the same qualifications for appointment of Judge of the High Court. There was no age prescribed. However, at the time of making the said selection from amongst the Advocates , the Committee shall have regard to the candidate's knowledge of revenue . laws with experience in taking the revenue cases before Judicial and Revenue Courts of the State. 11. By amendment to the said Rules in the year 2001, the age qualification was introduced to read as 50 years which was further amended on 25.1.2010 to read as 54 years. During the course of arguments, the State counsel was directed to produce the record in court to show what was the consideration before the State Government for making such an amendment. A perusal of the said record does not reflect that there were any actual deliberations before making the said amendment nor has the State been able to plead any rationale nexus between the amendment made and the object to be achieved. A perusal of the said record does not reflect that there were any actual deliberations before making the said amendment nor has the State been able to plead any rationale nexus between the amendment made and the object to be achieved. If the basic qualifications of an Advocate to be appointed as a Member of the Board is the same as qualifications required for appointment of a Judge of the High Court, there is no rationale in stipulating that the said candidate should have completed 54 years of age. There is also a provision in the said rules for constituting a Committee for the selection of Advocates to be appointed to the Board. This committee consists of Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, the Chairman of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Chief Secretary to the Government, the Chairman of the Board and Secretary to the Government of Revenue . Department, who while making the selection shall have regard to the candidate's knowledge of Revenue Laws and Revenue Administration of the State as also experience in conducting revenue cases before Judicial and Revenue Courts of the State. This is more than a suitable method to be able to select the best candidate for the post. 12. Undoubtedly, it is the prerogative of the State to prescribe a qualification for appointment to a particular post, but there must also be a reasonable nexus for raising the age limit as already prescribed by the Rules and the object to be achieved. The stand taken by the respondent-State that by raising the age limit there would be more experienced persons available for the post does not stand for reason. It cannot necessarily be said that by raising the age limit from 50 to 54 years, more suitable candidates would be made available. The main object to be achieved is to appoint a person having in-depth knowledge of revenue laws and for that a committee is constituted to select a candidate keeping in mind his knowledge of revenue laws. 13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Notification dated 25.1.2010 to the extent that introduces an amendment in Rule 4(c) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Qualification and Conditions of Service of Chairman and . 13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Notification dated 25.1.2010 to the extent that introduces an amendment in Rule 4(c) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Qualification and Conditions of Service of Chairman and . Members of the Board) Rules, 1971 deserves to be quashed and set aside being illegal, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner's application dated 16.4.2010 was directed to be provisionally considered. Pursuant to that direction, the petitioner appeared before the Committee as constituted under the Rules of 1971. The result of the said selection was directed to be kept in sealed cover and to be produced in Court on the date of hearing. The result has been perused by this Court and it is found that petitioner Vijay Kumar Soni is placed at Serial Number 1. In view of the fact that petitioner is a successful candidate to be appointed to the said post of Member of Board of Revenue and in view of the fact that this Court has held the Notification dated 25.1.2010 as illegal and ultra vires, we direct that the post of Member of the Board of Revenue be offered to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. In view of above observations, the above noted writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******