ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions can be divided into two categories. In one batch (hereinafter referred to as ‘first batch’), the petitioners, apart from praying for setting aside Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules’), as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires, Notification No.5/2019-RC dated 17.06.2019 issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inviting applications through online for General Recruitment to 38 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service comprising of 31 vacancies to be filled under Direct Recruitment and 07 vacancies to be filled under Recruitment by Transfer, is also put to challenge. 2. In other batch (hereinafter referred to as ‘second batch’), apart from praying for setting aside Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules’), as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires, Notification No.9/2020-RC dated 03.12.2020 issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inviting applications through online for General Recruitment to 68 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service comprising of 55 vacancies to be filled under Direct Recruitment and 13 vacancies to be filled under Recruitment by Transfer, is put to challenge. 3. In both the Notifications, eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules was laid down. 4. Rule 5(2)(a)(i) was substituted through amendment by G.O.Ms.No.29, Law (LA&J-SC.F) Department, dated 28.07.2017. 5. Rule 5 of the Rules prescribes the eligibility conditions for Direct Recruitment, amongst others, to the category of Civil Judges and Rule 5(2)(a)(i), prior to amendment, read as follows: “5.Eligibility: 1) xxxxx 2) Civil Judges: a) By Direct Recruitment: A person to be appointed to the category of Civil Judge shall be: (i) A holder of a degree in law awarded by any University established by Law in India.” 6. Presently, after the amendment, Rule 5(2)(a)(i) reads as follows: “5.Eligibility: 1) xxxxx 2) Civil Judges: a) By Direct Recruitment: A person to be appointed to the category of Civil Judges shall be: (i) One who has been practicing for not less than 3 years as an Advocate as on the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspapers.” 7. Presently, after the amendment, Rule 5(2)(a)(i) reads as follows: “5.Eligibility: 1) xxxxx 2) Civil Judges: a) By Direct Recruitment: A person to be appointed to the category of Civil Judges shall be: (i) One who has been practicing for not less than 3 years as an Advocate as on the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspapers.” 7. In both the batches of writ petitions, the petitioners had not fulfilled the eligibility prescribed under Rule 5(2)(a)(i) in that they had not put in three years of practice as on the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspapers. 8. In terms of the Notification dated 17.06.2019, the closing date for submission of online applications was fixed on 16.07.2019 and Screening Test (Computer Based Test) was to be conducted on 04.08.2019. 9. In the first batch of writ petitions, an interim order, first in point of time, came to be passed on 12.07.2019, directing the respondent authorities to accept the online applications of the petitioners, if they were otherwise found to be in order, and also to permit them to take the examination. It was further observed that any selection made in respect of the petitioners shall be subject to the result of the writ petitions and that the petitioners shall not claim any equities thereafter. An undertaking to that effect was directed to be taken, at the time of selection, in case the petitioners qualified in the preliminary examination. 10. Accordingly, in the first batch of petitions, the writ petitioners were allowed to appear for the examinations. Out of five candidates who appeared for viva voce, one came out successful and result of three other candidates, who are writ petitioners, was not declared. 11. After the Notification dated 03.12.2020 was issued, second batch of writ petitions came to be filed. However, unlike in the case of first batch of writ petitions, no interim order was passed directing the authorities to accept the online applications from the writ petitioners and consequently, enabling them to take part in the examination process. Screening test in terms of the Notification dated 03.12.2020 was held on 21.02.2021. 12. Both the batches of writ petitions have been heard together and W.P.No.7934 of 2019 was taken as a lead case. 13. We have heard Mr. Y. Balaji, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth and Mr. Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Ms. Screening test in terms of the Notification dated 03.12.2020 was held on 21.02.2021. 12. Both the batches of writ petitions have been heard together and W.P.No.7934 of 2019 was taken as a lead case. 13. We have heard Mr. Y. Balaji, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth and Mr. Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Ms. Sesha Rajyam, learned senior standing counsel and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel, appearing for the High Court. Mr. Babuji Tenneti, Mr. G. Rama Gopal, Ms. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, Mr. Aditya Harsha Vardhan representing M/s. Pillix Law Firm, Mr. G. Arun Showri, Mr. Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, Mr. K.L.N. Swamy, Mr. D. Vijay Goutam, Mr. Maripati Maharshi Viswaraj, Mr. Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, Mr. Virupaksha Dattatreya Gowda, Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other cases, have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Y. Balaji and Mr. Thandava Yogesh. 14. Mr. Y. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7934 of 2019, has submitted that the amendment cannot be sustained in law as the same is contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 , and has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraphs 32 and 40 to buttress his contention. He has also submitted that similar Rule, namely, Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, was held to be unconstitutional in the case of R. Anitha and others v. State of Telangana and another, reported in 2019 (6) ALD 625 (TS) (DB).He submits that as a logical corollary, Notification dated 16.07.2019 is to be set aside. It is also submitted that on the same analogy, the Notification dated 03.12.2020 is also liable to be set aside. 15. While the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other cases have adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Y. Balaji, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned counsel, in addition, has relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa and others v. State of Punjab in W.P.(C).No.1056 of 2016 decided on 03.03.2017. 16. Mr. Y. Balaji, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned counsel, in addition, has relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa and others v. State of Punjab in W.P.(C).No.1056 of 2016 decided on 03.03.2017. 16. Mr. Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel, however, has submitted that another Screening Test may be directed to be conducted for the petitioners who have assailed the Notification dated 03.12.2020, in the event of striking down Rule 5 (2)(a)(i) and setting aside the said Notification. 17. Ms. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the High Court, submits that the first batch of writ petitions had been rendered infructuous. She further submits that the judgment of A India Judges’ Association (supra) has to be understood in the context of Articles 234 and 235 of the Constitution as the High Court has control over the District Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto. 18. Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, who also appeared as a standing counsel for High Court in some of the cases, refers to the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Ravi Shankar v. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 (4) AJR 200. 19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 20. At the outset, we must record that we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned senior standing counsel, that the first batch of writ petitions has been rendered infructuous, as the interim order passed in the said batch of writ petitions itself indicates that the result of the writ petitioners therein will abide the final outcome of the writ petitions. 21. Since the sheet anchor of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A India Judges’ Association(supra), it is only appropriate to extract the relevant paragraphs in the said judgment, which are paragraphs 32 and 40: “32. In A India Judges’ Assn. case (SCCatp.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 a racted to the judicial service. In A India Judges’ Assn. case (SCCatp.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 a racted to the judicial service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the judicial service not a ractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shey Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been anadvocateforatleast3yearsshouldbedoneawaywith.After taking a the circumstances in to consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shey 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 bean advocate of at least three years' standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in A India Judges' case direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend the irrules 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 in to the judicial service should be imparted training of not less than one year, preferably two years. xxxxx xxxxx 40. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any maerarising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other court shall entertain them.” 22. xxxxx xxxxx 40. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any maerarising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other court shall entertain them.” 22. A reading of paragraph 32 would go to show that recommendation of Shetty Commission was accepted and in the light of the experience gained over the years after the decision in the case of A India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 288 , where in it had observed that in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an advocate of at least three years’ standing, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not have three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter judicial service. While making such positive direction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recommended that a fresh recruit into the judicial service should be imparted training of not less than one year, preferably two years. Thus, so far as the training period is concerned, the same is left to the discretion of the High Courts. 23. Further, as per the observation made in paragraph 40 of the judgment in A India Judges’ Association(supra), if at all any clarification is required in respect of any matter arising out of the said decision, the same can be sought only from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. In the case of Ravi Shankar (supra), the issue that had arisen for consideration of the High Court of Jharkhand was as to whether even though in the Rules there is no provision of three years practice as an advocate as a requirement for being eligible to be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division), prescription of a clause in the advertisement that the candidate must have enrolled as advocate under the Advocates Act is illegal and arbitrary, being not in accordance with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inA India Judges’ Association(supra).The challenge mounted was negatived by the Jharkhand High Court and even otherwise, such a question has not fallen for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. 25. 25. In R. Anitha (supra), the High Court for the State of Telangana has laid down as follows: “A bare perusal of the said provision clearly reveals that the Article uses the word “sha ”, which obviously gives a mandatory colour to the said Article. There fore, once the law has been declared by the Apex Court, it becomes the law of the land. The said law is binding on a the Courts within the territory of India.” It is further observed as follows: “However, as far as the imposition of the pre-requisite of experience of three years at the Baris concerned, obviously the imposition of such a condition would be contrary to “the direction”issuedbytheApexCourtinparagraph32mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the imposition of such a condition would also be in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” 26. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Telangana. Though, under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court has power of control and supervision over the District Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto, it cannot be countenanced that the High Court can simply wish away the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inasmuch as under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. 27. In view of the discussion above, Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of the Rules is held to be unconstitutional. 28. Having held so, it will be necessary to mould the relief available to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. 29. So far as the first batch of writ petitions is concerned, as is already noticed, those who had approached this Court were permitted by way of interim order to take part in the recruitment process. As such, there is no necessity to set aside the Notification dated 17.06.2019. As the challenge regarding unconstitutionality of the Rule has been upheld, the Registry will take steps in respect of the three writ petitioners whose results were not declared. Depending on the result, further steps, as may be called for, shall be taken by the Registry. Following the interim order dated 12.07.2019, we also make it clear that the three candidates cannot claim any equities, such as, seniority, etc. 30. Depending on the result, further steps, as may be called for, shall be taken by the Registry. Following the interim order dated 12.07.2019, we also make it clear that the three candidates cannot claim any equities, such as, seniority, etc. 30. So far as the second batch of writ petitions is concerned, they stand on a different footing. The petitioners in the second batch could not take part in the recruitment process in terms of the Notification dated 03.12.2020. The Screening Test had in the meantime been conducted. However, result of the said Screening Test is yet to be declared. 31. Having regard to the above discussion, Notification dated 03.12.2020 is set aside. Consequently, the Screening Test held on the basis of the said Notification cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, there will be no necessity to declare the result of the Screening Test held on 21.02.2021. 32. Registry is directed to issue a fresh Notification inviting applications for General Recruitment to 68 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service comprising of 55 vacancies to be filled under Direct Recruitment and 13 vacancies to be filled under Recruitment by Transfer. 33. All the candidates who have appeared for the Screening Test held on 21.02.2021 in pursuance of the Notification dated 03.12.2020 would be entitled to appear in the fresh recruitment process on the basis of their application submitted earlier. 34. We also make it clear that if any of the candidates who had appeared in the Screening Test held on 21.02.2021 and the writ petitioners become over aged in the meantime, their age shall be deemed to have been relaxed to enable them to take part in the fresh recruitment process that would be initiated through Notification to be issued on the basis of this order. 35. Needless to say, any eligible person who have not responded to the earlier Notification dated 03.12.2020 shall also be entitled to participate in the fresh recruitment process. 36. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.