Madhya Pradesh HC sustains disqualification of a district Judge Aspirant who has more than two children, to which rules have been made without discussion with High Court is not acceptable as High court in the announcement have specified that applicant will be accountable to be disqualified if does not comply the conditions of the rule.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has retained disqualification of a District Judge applicant who had cleared principle examination and interview, yet whose application was crossed out on the ground that she has in excess of two children and the same being against the conditions specified in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. Clause 3 of the announcement issued by the High Court had unmistakably said that if an applicant does not satisfy the arrangements of M.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules 1994 and M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. Trying the use of said rule, it was battled under the steady gaze of the High court that the Rules have not been confined in consultation with the High Court and such Rules boundless supply of legal.
The employment and encroachment conditions are unconventional to the Higher Judicial Service and the Rules represent such perspectives. In any case, general procedural conditions, for example, the time of probation or the conditions for affirmation are managed by the 1961 Rules. The immaterialness of 1961 Rules to the individuals from the Higher Judicial Service does not identify with centre of legal administration but rather identifies with the procedural viewpoint which does not cast any tracker on the freedom of Judiciary.
A recent Judgment of High court wherein two legal officers who were precluded for the reason that they have in excess of two children, however the application mount never got some information about it, were re-established, was depended upon. In any case, the bench expelled the contention on the ground that said judgment has not analysed the lawfulness of stipulation to Rule 3 and the Rule (6) of the 1961 Rules, consequently, the said judgment isn't material to the actualities of the present case.