IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Tejas Tripathi and Ors. . . . Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. . . . Respondents

WITH

I.A.NO.__________ OF 2023
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF

PAPER BOOK

[FOR INDEX: PLEASE SEE INSIDE]

Advocate-On-Record for the Petitioners: SIDDHARTHA IYER

FILED ON : 06.12.2023
 B
SYNOPSIS

The Petitioners are all law graduates, who are desirous of

competing for posts in the judicial services in Madhya Pradesh,
and are aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary eligibility criteria
introduced by the Respondents by way of F.No. 3106 /XXI-
B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 and
Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138
posts of Civil Judge. The Present Writ Petition seeks to challenge
the same as they are arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of
India.
In 1993, This Hon’ble Court in the All-India Judges’ Assn.
case (1993) 4 SCC 288, held that in order to enter the judicial
service an applicant must be an advocate with at least three years
of standing. Subsequently this Court held in All India Judges’
Association and Other versus Union of India and Ors. Reported as
(2002) 4 SCC 247, noted that this embargo had not resulted in any
benefit, and therefore directed all High Courts and State
Governments to amend their rules to enable a fresh law graduate
to compete and enter the judicial services. The Court remarked as
under:
32. In All India Judges’ Assn. case2 (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
 C
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

It is submitted that twenty years after the Judgement of the

Supreme Court, the Respondents herein have framed the
Impugned Rules and issued the Impugned Advertisement,
completely against the letter and spirit of the decision of this
Hon’ble Court. The salient feature of the amendment is that In
order to be eligible to write the exam a candidate must have
completed three years of practice OR obtained more than 70%
marks in the first attempt while doing their law course, in which
case they are exempt from the three compulsory years of practice.

It is contended that the Impugned Rule is ultra vires the

Constitution of India because
a. It fails to take into account that different colleges will have
different marking standards, and the traditionally
prestigious universities do not give marks higher than 50-
60%. Private Universities which are not so prestigious tend
 D
to award marks on the higher side, so it will not be a fair
comparison. A percentile based system, as opposed to
absolute marks would have made a better choice.
b. The rules apply retrospectively to all students, even those
who were admitted into law college before the rule came to
be passed It is contended that none of the Petitioners were
aware that 70% would end up being the minimum marks
required to appear in the examination. Their legitimate
expectation of being able to write the judicial services
examination after obtaining a law degree is being defeated
by applying the rule retrospectively.
c. It is further contended that future candidates will be in a
position to ensure that they maintain a good academic
record throughout to obtain 70% marks, but the present
petitioners and similarly situated candidates cannot now go
back in time and redo their examinations to meet the
threshold requirement which did not exist at the time they
joined law school. At the very least the rule ought not to be
allowed to operate retrospectively thereby defeating the
Petitioners and other similarly situated candidates’
legitimate expectations.
d. Lastly, the 70% academic record only applies to those
students who did not get a single ATKT Paper (Allowed to
Keep Terms) paper, which means they passed all papers in
their first attempt. It is contended that even this additional
non ATKT requirement is ultra vires, as it fails to take in
account the consideration that a student throughout their law
 E
school may be unable to pass an examination, because they
had to deal with a medical or family emergency, and is not
limited only to those whose preparation was not thorough
enough to clear the examination. Diligent hardworking,
students who faced and overcame potential adversity can be
adversely affected by these Arbitrary Rules.

Moreover,” practice “ in accordance with the

Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for
138 posts of Civil Judge, means requiring the candidate to
produce a certificate of continuous practice from the concerned
bar association, as well as well as 6 certified copies appearance
slips, where the candidate has appeared and some substantial
hearing has taken place. It is respectfully contended that this
requirement too is illegal and ultra vires, as it is extremely
unlikely that a young lawyer of the age 23-25 will be entrusted
a case by himself. The odds of them appearing in any
substantial proceedings for the first years of practice is very
low let alone, 6 substantial proceedings. The requirement is
curiously mentioned only in the advertisement and not the
Rules, making the advertisement ultra vires the rules
themselves.
Thus the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted that though the matter relates to recruitment into

the MP Judicial Services, and the rule relates to the State of
 F
Madhya Pradesh, the Petitioners have opted to approach this
Hon’ble Court instead of first agitating their rights before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.
It is respectfully submitted that a similarly situated
candidate from a prestigious university, NSLIU, approached the
Hon’ble High Court and vide order dated 01.12.2023, was refused
interim relief, and the matter was adjourned to after the vacations,
virtually rendering the petition infructous, This is because the
examination is scheduled to take place on 14.01.2024, and the last
date for filling up the application is 18.12.2023.
It is submitted that the Petitioners were fearful that if they
approached the High Court first and thereafter this Hon’ble Court,
their petition too would become infructuous with the passage of
time, and therefore the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble
Court under Article 32 instead of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
LIST OF DATES

1993 This Hon’ble Court in the All-India Judges’

Assn. case (1993) 4 SCC 288, held that in order
to enter the judicial service an applicant must
be an advocate with at least three years of
standing.
2002 This Hon’ble Court in All India Judges’
Association and Other versus Union of India
and Ors. Reported as (2002) 4 SCC 247, noted
that this embargo had not resulted in any
 G
benefit, and therefore directed all High Courts
and State Governments to amend their rules to
enable a fresh law graduate to compete and
enter the judicial services. The Court remarked
as under:
32. In All India Judges’ Assn. case2 (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
 H
23.06.2023 The Respondents notified the F.No. 3106
/XXI-B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. It is
submitted that by virtue of the Amendment the
requirement of 3 of practicing continuously for
a period of 3 years was reintroduced by way of
a provisio. Additionally, arbitrarily only those
general category students who have secured an
aggregate of 70% of marks in the first attempt,
were exempted from the requirements of 3
years of practice. This requirement was
reduced to 50% for SCs, STs and OBCs.

17.11.2023 The Respondents issued Advertisement No.

113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138
posts of Civil Judge, for the State of Madhya
Pradesh. It is submitted that this advertisement
provided that only those advocates who had
completed 3 years in practice were eligible to
write the papers, or those bright students, who
had obtained more 70% (general category, and
OBC) or 50% aggregate marks (SC, ST),
without any Allowed To Keep Terms (ATKT)
papers. It further provided that in order to
satisfy the period of compulsory practice, a
 I
certificate of continuous practice would have
to be presented from concerned bar
association. Additionally, they were also
required to show at least 6 appearances where
they had appeared as the Advocate, in which
some substantial hearing took place. It is
submitted that as per the advertisement, the last
date for application for participating in the
exam is 18.12.2023. It is the case of the
Petitioners herein that the amended rules, as
well as the advertisement are arbitrary and
ultra vires the Constitution of India, Arbitrary
and therefore deserve to be struck down. They
are at present ineligible to take part in the
exam.

01.12.2023 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh seized of

a challenge to the 2023 Amendment to the
Rules, by another candidate, in W.P. No.
15150 of 2023 did not consider the application
for interim relief and adjourned the matter till
after the vacations. It is submitted by the time
the next date of hearing takes place, the
application will become infructuous, as the last
date for applications will be over.
 J
05.12.2023 The Petitioners are therefore approaching this
Hon’ble Court under Article 32, instead of first
approaching the High court under Article 226,
challenging the unconstitutional Amendment
to the Rules made in 2023, as well as the
advertisement dated 17.11.2023.
 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._________ OF 2023

In the matter of Article 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of

the Constitution of India;
AND
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services
Recruitment and Conditions of Service
Rules, Amendment 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Tejas Tripathi.

2. ….
Sangli-416404, Maharashtra. . . . Petitioners

-Versus-

1. State of Madhya Pradesh

Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
Room No. 436, A Wing, 4th Floor,
Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi- 110001.

2. High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
A Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi- 110001.

7.
Thane-400601, Maharashtra. . . . Respondents

. . . All are Contesting Respondents

 2
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A
MANDAMUS DECLARING F.NO. 3106 /XXI-B(ONE)/2023
AMENDING THE MADHYA PRADESH JUDICIAL SERVICE
RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1994
AND ADVERTISEMENT NO. 113/EXAM/C.J./2022 ON
17.11.2023, FOR 138 POSTS OF CIVIL JUDGE, AS ULTRA
VIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The Petitioners are citizens of India, who have all completed their
LLB degree from recognised Universities in India. The Petitioners are
desirous of joining the judicial services of the country, and are keen to serve
as Civil Judges, within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Petitioners are
challenging F.No. 3106 /XXI-B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, dated
23.06.2023, as well as Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on
17.11.2023, for 138 posts of Civil Judge, issued by the Respondents herein,
as they are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in
complete contravention of the decisions of this Hon’ble Court in All India
Judges’ Association and Other versus Union of India and Ors. Reported as
(2002) 4 SCC 247. The Petitioners are approaching this Hon’ble Court
directly by way of Article 32 of the Constitution of India because the High
 3
Court of Madhya Pradesh has refused to grant interim relief to a similarly
situated candidate vide order dated 01.12.2023, and adjourned the matter,
beyond the last date for applying for the Civil Judge Examination, i.e.
18.12.2023.

1A. That against the impugned challenge herein, there is no remedy of

appeal, revision etc. and Petitioners have not filed any similar Petition,
Appeal etc. in the present cause of action. The Petitioners are only aware
of W.P. No. 15150 of 2023, which was not filed by any of the Petitioners
herein, pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and are not
aware of any other proceeding before any court of law in respect of this
cause of action.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:-
A) Whether the Impugned Amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, are
Arbitrary, and without adequate determining principle, and therefore
violating Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1949?

B) Whether the Impugned Rules and Advertisement are contrary to the

letter and spirit of the decision of this Hon’ble Court in All India
Judges’ Association and Other versus Union of India and Ors.
Reported as (2002) 4 SCC 247?

C) Was it even open or permissible for the Respondents to frame a rule

prescribing a compulsory period of experience as an Advocate for a
period of three years, for writing the exam for the judicial services?

D) Whether Impugned Rules and Advertisement, insofar as it only

grants students who secured more than 70% marks in aggregate in
 4
their first attempt, exemption are arbitrary and without adequate
determining principle?

E) Whether the requirement of an advocate having 6 substantive

appearances in each year, preceding writing the examination for
eligibility to the Judicial Service, unreal, virtually rendering most
candidate’s ineligible to apply?

F) Are the Impugned Rules and Advertisement therefore manifestly

arbitrary?

3. FACTS OF THE CASE: -

3.1 The Petitioners are persons who have passed out of law school and
are holders of the LLB Degree, from UGC and Bar Council of India
recognised Universities. The Petitioners are all aspiring to serve the
nation as judges, and wish to participate in the civil judge
examination scheduled to be conducted by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in 2024, pursuant to the Advertisement dated
17.11.2023. The Petitioners have been rendered ineligible to
participate in the exam process because of the unconstitutional
amendments and advertisement which have been impugned in the
present petition.

3.2 This Hon’ble Court as early as in 1993, in the All-India Judges’

Assn. case (1993) 4 SCC 288, held that in order to enter the judicial
service an applicant must be an advocate with at least three years of
standing. Pursuant to this decision of this Hon’ble Court, all High
Courts and State Governments, amended the rules for recruitment,
 5
prescribing three years of practice as an eligibility criterion, for
appearing in competitive examinations, for appointment against
posts in the Judicial Services.

3.3 Subsequently, this Hon’ble Court in All India Judges’ Association

and Other versus Union of India and Ors. Reported as (2002) 4 SCC
247, noted that this embargo had not resulted in any benefit, and
therefore directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend
their rules to enable a fresh law graduate to compete and enter the
judicial services. The Court remarked 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

A copy of the Judgement of this Hon’ble Court in All India Judges’

Association and Other versus Union of India and Ors. Reported as
 6
(2002) 4 SCC 247 is annexed to this Petition and has been marked
as Annexure P/1 at pages ____ to____

3.4 The Respondents on 23.06.2023 notified the F.No. 3106 /XXI-

B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. It is submitted
that by virtue of the Amendment the requirement of 3 of practicing
continuously for a period of 3 years was reintroduced by way of a
provisio. Additionally, arbitrarily only those who secured an
aggregate of 70% of marks in the first attempt ( for general and OBC
candidates), were exempted from the requirements of 3 years of
practice. This marks requirement was reduced to 50% for SCs, STs.

A copy of the F.No. 3106 /XXI-B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya

Pradesh Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1994 is annexed to this Petition and has been marked as
Annexure P/2 at pages ___ to ___.

3.5 Subsequently, the Respondents notified Advertisement No.

113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138 posts of Civil Judge for
the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that this advertisement
provided that only those advocates who had completed 3 years in
practice were eligible to write the papers, or those bright students,
who had obtained more 70% (general category) or 50% aggregate
marks (SC, ST, OBC), without any Allowed To Keep Terms
(ATKT) papers. It further provided that in order to satisfy the period
of compulsory practice, a certificate of continuous practice would
 7
have to be presented from the concerned court bar association.
Additionally, they were also required to show at least 6 appearances
where they had appeared as the Advocate, in which some substantial
proceedings took place. It is submitted that as per the advertisement,
the last date for application for participating in the exam is
18.12.2023. A copy of Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on
17.11.2023, for 138 posts of Civil Judge issued by the Respondents
is annexed to this Petition and has been marked as Annexure P/3 at
pages ___ to ____.

3.6 It is the case of the Petitioners herein that the amended rules, as well
as the advertisement are arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of
India, Arbitrary and therefore deserve to be struck down. They are
at present ineligible to take part in the exam. Moreover, this
amendment though carried out in 2023, would retrospectively apply
to all batches, who were not aware that failing to get 70% marks in
the aggregate would result in being ineligible for appearing in the
judicial services examination.

3.7 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh seized of a challenge to the 2023
Amendment to the Rules, by another candidate, in W.P. No. 15150
of 2023 did not consider the application for interim relief and
adjourned the matter till after the vacations. It is submitted by the
time the next date of hearing takes place, the application will become
infructuous, as the last date for applications will be over. A copy of
the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in W.P. No. 15150 of 2023 is annexed to this Petition and
has been marked as Annexure P/4 at pages ___ to ____
 8
3.8 It is submitted that the Petitioners are approaching this Hon’ble
Under Article 32 as the High Court has refused to grant interim relief
to similarly situated persons. It is submitted with the utmost humility
and respect, that if the Petitioners were to approach the High Court,
their prayer for interim relief would meet the same fate, as the other
candidate. It is submitted that if the Petitioners were to first approach
the High Court under Article 226, and thereafter approach this
Hon’ble Court on the aspect of interim relief, the Petition itself
would likely become infructuous, and therefore the Petitioners have
approached this Hon’ble Court directly under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and impugned provisions of

Petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 32

of the Constitution of India on the basis of interest of justice for the purpose

of protection of Fundamental Right of Petitioners under Article 14 and 21

of the Constitution of India on following amongst several other grounds

which are without prejudice to each other:-

GROUNDS FOR WRIT PETITION

A) Because the Impugned Rules and Advertisement insofar as they

restrict candidates with less than 3 years of experience, from
appearing in the judicial services examination is arbitrary and is
clearly against the letter and spirit of the decision of this Hon’ble
Court in All India Judges’ Association and Other versus Union of
India and Ors. Reported as (2002) 4 SCC 247.
 9
B) Because this Hon’ble Court in no uncertain terms 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

C) Because setting 70% as qualifying marks scored in the University

Level exams without ATKT, is arbitrary and wholly without
adequate determining principles, and is a case of treating unequals
equally. It is submitted that different law colleges have different
marking schemes, and there is neither standardised test or
examination that is conducted by all law colleges, nor common
examiners. In certain Universities, most students may have marks
higher than 70% which would render them all eligible for
participating in the judicial services exam. On the flip side,
traditional and often sometime more prestigious universities such as
even Delhi University, do not tend to give marks higher than 60%
 10
for most papers. In fact, it is likely in many colleges the highest
ranker may not have an aggregate score of 70%. It is therefore
contended that the rule does not take into account these factors, and
have treated unequals equally. It is contended that a significantly
better way would have been to introduce a percentile system, where
only the top performing student of each University would be allowed
to appear. It is submitted that the Impugned Rules are resulting in
preventing students from the most prestigious of Universities, such
as NLSIU from being eligible to even appear for the exam.

D) Because limiting the applicability of the 70% marks only to those

students who have no ATKT (Allowed to Keep Terms) papers, is
also unfair and arbitrary. It is submitted that ATKT is employed
when a student does not pass any of his examinations of a particular
year. The student is permitted to continue on the same terms and
progress to the next year on the understanding that he or she will
have to write repeat papers, of the subject they were unable to pass.
It is submitted that the inability to pass at the very first attempt is not
limited only to situations where the Student is not adequately
prepared and fails the examination. It could arise due to a medical or
family emergency, which resulted in the student being unable to
appear in the examinations itself. Thus, even the requirement of
having no ATKT, appears to be without adequate reasoning, failing
to take into account situations that may have arisen for any student.
It is submitted that the ATKT rule, or passing in the first attempt rule,
could potentially ruin the career prospects of a candidate, merely
because he was in some difficulty during one of his exams during his
long period of education. It is therefore contended that this part of
the rule is heavily arbitrary, and once again suffers from the vice of
 11
treating unequal’s equally, which is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, 1949.

E) Because insofar as the Rules simpliciter debar anybody who ever had
even one ATKT paper, is another instance of the Respondents
treating unequals equally, as the reasons behind getting ATKT, such
as illness, medical emergency, family emergency or simply not being
prepared enough for the examination, will differ for each candidate.
Clubbing them together, and debarring all of them from appearing in
the examination unless they complete three years in practice, is
unfair and arbitrary.

F) Because even otherwise insofar as the Rules seek to apply

retrospectively are arbitrary and liable to struck down. Many of the
Petitioners herein were desirous of attempting to join the judicial
services, which was the primary motivation for attending law school.
It is submitted that at the time when the Petitioners started their legal
education, there was neither any requirement of marks nor of
practice, and therefore the Petitioners carried out their college life
with the legitimate expectation that if they are able to secure passing
grade, they will be eligible to write the Judicial Services
Examination, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that
the same amounts to a legitimate expectation of the Petitioners which
stands to be defeated by way of the Impugned Rules and
Advertisement.

G) Because it is not possible for the Petitioners, many of whom have

between 67% - 69% aggregate marks in their law school to go back
in time, and seek to increase their marks in their law school. It is
contended that at the very least the Impugned Rules, insofar as it
 12
seeks to apply to students who entered into a legal course before
2023, is manifestly arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside.

H) Because many of the Petitioners spent valuable time and resources

in attending judicial services coaching classes, instead of trying to
obtain a higher percentage in the aggregate scores, as until the
Impugned Amendment came into force, a candidate was only
required to have an LLB Degree. It is submitted that if the Petitioners
were aware that such a requirement for aggregate score exists, the
Petitioners would have perhaps given higher focus to ensuring that
their aggregate percentage was in excess of 70%, which they now
cannot achieve.

I) Because at the very least the Impugned Amendment and Notification

cannot operate retrospectively, in respect of those candidates who
entered legal education. It is contended that any alternate
interpretation will renders hundreds or even thousands of aspirants
remediless, and unable to even participate in the selection process,
for judicial service. It is contended that practically amounts to
changing of the rules game once the students had already begun
participating towards getting a legal education.

J) Because in any case the Advertisement issued by the Respondent is

ultra vires the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rule, as amended in 2023, and also suffers
from the vice of Arbitrariness. It is contended that the new rules as
framed provide that a candidate who has not obtained 70% with
ATKT, must be in practice for 3 years, and must also produce
certified copies of 6 orders in each of the preceding years, in which
he has appeared which were substantial proceedings.
 13
K) Because the Rules themselves, only prescribe that the Advocate must
be in practice for 3 years, but the Advertisement has insisted on
getting a certificate of practice from the concerned bar association,
as well as producing 6 certified copies of order wherein substantial
hearing has taken place. It is submitted that Advertisement therefore
clearly exceeds what is contemplated for in the Rules, and therefore
is ultra vires the rules, and is liable to be struck down on this ground
alone.

L) Because even otherwise, it is not practically possible for a young law

graduate to produce 6 orders in which substantial hearing taken place
in a year, shortly after their graduation. It is submitted that in the
initial few years of practice, when the law graduate is of a tender age
of 23-25, no client would trust them with their case, and practice at
that age is predominantly limited to assisting a senior lawyer in his
cases. It is contended that appearances in 6 substantial hearings every
year, at such a young stage in their careers is also highly unlikely.
Thus, by way of the Impugned Advertisement, the Respondents have
prescribed eligibility criteria for the preliminary examination which
most candidates may not even be eligible, is not ultra vires the rules,
but is also ultra vires the Constitution of India, 1949.

M) Because in view of the fact that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
has refused to grant interim relief to a similarly situated candidate,
and already adjourned the matter such that it is already infructuous,
the Petitioners have felt compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
 14
5. The present petitioners have not filed any other petition before the
High Court or the Supreme Court seeking similar reliefs on the
subject matter of the petition. The Petitioners have approached this
Hon’ble Court because they have no alternative and efficacious
remedy. The present petition under Article 32 is maintainable before
this Hon’ble Court, as the Respondents have violated the
fundamental rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.

PRAYERS: -
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
gracefully be pleased to:-
a) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring that F.No. 3106 /XXI-B(One)/2023 amending
the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1994 is null and void;

b) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the
Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138
posts of Civil Judge, is ultra vires the Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994; and

c) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction in the nature of a Mandamus declaring that the
Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138
posts of Civil Judge, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of
India , 1949;
 15
d) In the alternative issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction in the nature of a Mandamus declaring that
the F.No. 3106 /XXI-B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1994, and therefore consequently, the terms of the Advertisement
No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138 posts of Civil
Judge,cannot be applied retrospectively

e) pass other appropriate order as deemed fit under the circumstance of

the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE,
PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn & Filed by:-

Drawn on : 05.12.2023
Filed on : 06.12.2023 [SIDDHARTHA IYER]
Place: New Delhi Advocate for the Petitioners
 16
APPENDIX
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

14. Equality before law: - The State shall not deny to any person

equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the

territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of

religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

// TRUE COPY //
 52
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A.NO.__________ OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Tejas Tripathi and Ors. . . . Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. . . . Respondents

APPLICATION FOR STAY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE
PETITIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXAMINATION
SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 14.01.2024
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The present Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is

filed for protection of fundamental rights of the Petitioner under
Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. That the Petitioners have stated the necessary and relevant facts in
the accompanying writ petition which may be treated as a part and
parcel of this Application and the same are not being repeated for the
sake of brevity.
 53
3. It is the case of the Petitioners herein that F.No. 3106 /XXI-
B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, and the
Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138
posts of Civil Judge, are ultra vires the Constitution of India, as they
are arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4. As a result of the application of Impugned Rules and Impugned
Advertisement, the Petitioners are unable to participate in the exams
for the post of civil judge, as they are ineligible. These exams are
scheduled to be held on 14.01.2024. The Petitioners have challenged
the Arbitrary Rules and Advertisement which have resulted in their
ineligibility before this Hon’ble Court.
5. It is submitted that at present if the Rules are not kept in abeyance,
the Petitioners and several other persons similarly situated like the
Petitioners will be unable to participate in the examination, which
will reduce the overall talent pool available for selection.
6. Apart from the Public Interest Aspect, the Petitioners who have
invested considerable time and effort in preparing for these
examinations will be ousted from appearing for at least a period of
one year, or whenever the examinations are held again. It is
contended that this would only be because of the arbitrary ultra vires
rules and advertisement continued in force.
7. It is contended that the Petitioners have an excellent prima facie case,
and are likely to succeed. It is contended that if interim relief as
prayed for is not granted by this Hon’ble Court, the Petitioners will
face irreparable loss of one entire year, of their careers. On the other
hand, if this Hon’ble Court grants interim relief, the Respondents
 54
will in no way by harmed, or prejudiced. It is contended that the
balance of convenience therefore clearly lies in favour of the
Petitioners herein.
8. The Present application is therefore made seeking stay of the
operation of the Impugned Rules, and Advertisement, insofar as they
debar the Petitioners from participating in the Examination
Scheduled to take place on 14.01.2024, during the pendency of the
present petition.
9. The present application is made bonafide and in the interests of
justice.
PRAYERS
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Hon’ble Court may
gracefully be pleased to:-

a) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order, staying F.No. 3106 /XXI-

B(One)/2023 amending the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994; and
Advertisement No. 113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138
posts of Civil Judge,

b) Pass an ex-parte ad interim order, permitting the Petitioners herein

to participate in the recruitment process in Advertisement No.
113/exam/C.J./2022 on 17.11.2023, for 138 posts of Civil Judge,
during the pendency of the present petition.

c) Pass any such order as deemed necessary by this Hon'ble Court.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE,

PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
 55
Filed by:-

Filed on : 06.12.2023 [SIDDHARTHA IYER]

Place: New Delhi Advocate for the Petitioners
 56
SECTION – X

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____________ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Tejas Tripathi and Ors. . . . Petitioners

-Versus-

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. . . . Respondents

FILING INDEX
Sr. Description Copies. Court
No. Fees
1. Listing Performa. 1+3
2. Synopsis and List of Dates. 1+3
3. Writ Petition with Affidavit. 1+3
4. Annexure-P-1 to P-9 1+3
5. Application for Stay 1+3
6. Vakalatnama with Memo of Appearance. 1
Total→ /-

Filed by:-

[SIDDHARTHA IYER]
Advocate for the Petitioner(s)
Registration No.3384
104, Old Lawyers Chambers
AK Sen Block, Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-110001
Place: New Delhi +91-9871131856
Date: 06.12.2023 E-mail: [email protected]