The Supreme Court, on September 26, 2025, disposed of a batch of petitions challenging the common judgments of the High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, relating to eligibility criteria for recruitment to the Telangana State Judicial Service under the 2023 Rules. Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, noted that while the High Court’s interpretation of the Telangana 2023 Rules was valid, qualified candidates could be appointed as a special case to balance statutory compliance with equitable relief.
The case arose when the State of Telangana issued notifications introducing the 2023 Rules on June 10, 2023, for recruitment of District Judges (Entry Level), requiring petitioners to have practiced as advocates in the Telangana High Court or courts under its control for at least seven years. The petitioners who believed they met the qualifications under the earlier rules submitted their applications but were later rejected on July 24, 2024, for lacking the requisite Bar enrolment experience. They filed writ petitions to the High Court and challenged their exclusion. In return the High Court issued a notice granting interim relief on August 6, 2024, allowing the petitioners to appear in the written examination, which they cleared. However, the High Court did not declare the results ultimately dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the 2023 Rules and rejecting claims of discrimination under Article 14
The Court, while appreciating the position taken by the High Court, directed it to declare the results of the qualified appellants, petitioners, and intervenors and to proceed with verification of their credentials. It further held that those found suitable were to be appointed as District Judges as a special case within two months, without affecting the 2023 Rules. The Court clarified that these appointments would not entitle the appointees to any arrears, and their seniority would be determined based on the date of appointment. Similar directions were extended to other writ petitioners who had appeared in the examination. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petitions with specific directions, while leaving all questions of law open and directing the parties to bear their own costs.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR 1 Mrs. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gaur, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR Mr. S. Vinay Ratnakar, AOR Mr. Kashapogu Suresh, Adv. Mr. Ayaan Thakur, Adv. Mr. Nabab Singh, Adv. Mrs. Divya Dokka, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Sudhir, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Parganiha, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Mr. Agnish Aditya, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jangra, Adv. Mr. Goli Rama Krishna, Adv. Ms. Vandana Sharma, AOR Ms. Karishma Seth, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Saxena, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Ashish Chandra Singh, Adv. M/s Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinay, AOR Ms. Kirti Vyas, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Mr. M.srikanth Varma, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. M. Srikanth Varma, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR Mr. S. Vinay Ratnakar, AOR Mr. Kashapogu Suresh, Adv. C.A. Nos.11018-11019/2024 2 Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv. Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv. Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Ashish Chandra Singh, Adv. M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. B. Mohan, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Jain, Adv.
