{"id":94246,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-02T15:56:51","modified_gmt":"2017-06-02T10:26:51","slug":"pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A. H. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                                           \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                   Writ Petition No.3060 of 2008\n\n     Pravin son of Moharao Unhale,\n     aged about 29 years,\n     occupation - Lawyer,\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     resident of Lahan Wadgaon,\n     Arni Road, behind Shivam\n     Electricals,   \n     Yavatmal-445 001.                      ....          Petitioner.\n\n                               Versus\n                   \n     1.   State of Maharashtra,\n          through its Secretary,\n          Department of Law & Judiciary,\n          Mantralaya,\n      \n\n\n          Mumbai-32.\n   \n\n\n\n     2.   The Chairman,\n          Maharashtra Public Service\n          Commission, Bank of India\n          Building, third floor,\n\n\n\n\n\n          M.G. Road, Hutatma Chowk,\n          Fort, Mumbai-1.        .....                    Respondents.\n\n\n                              *****\n     Mr. N.M. Agnihotri, Adv., for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for respondents.\n\n                                *****\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::\n                                     2\n                                   CORAM       :      B.H.MARLAPALLE AND\n                                                      A.H.JOSHI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                           Reserved on          :     20th November,2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                          Pronounced on         :     3rd December,2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n<\/pre>\n
     J U D G M E N T [Per B.H. Marlapalle, J]:\n<\/p>\n
     1.       Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and<\/p>\n
     is heard by consent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.       The     Petitioner         has        passed           his        LL.B.\n<\/p>\n
     Examination held in April-May, 2004 from the Amravati<\/p>\n
     University,    the   result   whereof         was      declared         on    3rd<\/p>\n
     July, 2004.    The petitioner passed the said Final Year<\/p>\n
     LL.B. Examination with 57.3 per cent marks.\n<\/p>\n
     3.       On 4th July, 2007, the respondent No.2 – the<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra    Public    Service      Commission              [“MPSC”         for<\/p>\n
     short]   had     published      a         proclamation                inviting<\/p>\n
     applications   for    the   posts    of    Civil          Judges       [Junior<\/p>\n
     Division] & Judicial Magistrates First Class [“Junior<\/p>\n
     Civil Judge”, for short], and the applications were to<\/p>\n
     be received by 3rd August, 2007. Another proclamation<\/p>\n
     was published by the MPSC on 3rd August, 2007, for the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span>
\n     additional posts of 175, thus, increasing the total<\/p>\n
     posts   to   325    and   the   last   date     to     receive         the<\/p>\n
     applications was extended from 3rd August, 2007 to 10th<\/p>\n
     August, 2007. The eligible candidates to apply for the<\/p>\n
     said posts were divided in six different categories,<\/p>\n
     namely A, B, C, D, E and F, and we are concerned with<\/p>\n
     the eligibility qualifications laid down in A and<\/p>\n
     categories, which read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              “A]    ig For Advocate, Attorney or Pleader :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        Qualification :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Candidate should have practised as
\n              an Advocate, Attorney or Pleader in the
\n              High Court or Courts subordinate thereto
\n              for not less than three years on 3rd
\n              August, 2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Note: In the case of Public Prosecutors,<\/p>\n
                    their service in that capacity will
\n                    be taken as practice at the Bar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              \"B]       For fresh Law Graduates :\n\n\n\n\n\n                        Qualification :\n\n                    The candidates who have obtained\n<\/pre>\n
              the degree of law with not less than 55
\n              per cent marks at the final year of LL.B.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Examination in the first attempt within
\n              three years on 03rd August, 2007 and who
\n              is   qualified  for   enrollment  as   an
\n              Advocate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.       Petitioner states that after the result of his<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span>
\n     LL.B. Final Year Examination was declared on 3rd July,<\/p>\n
     2004, he received the provisional degree Certificate<\/p>\n
     dated 12th July, 2004, and applied to the Bar Council<\/p>\n
     of Maharashtra and Goa for enrollment as an Advocate on<\/p>\n
     5th August, 2004, and he came to be enrolled as an<\/p>\n
     Advocate on 23rd August, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
     5.       In response to the Proclamation dated 3rd July,<\/p>\n
     2007, the petitioner          applied to the post of Junior<\/p>\n
     Civil Judge by filling up the prescribed form on 31st<\/p>\n
     July,   2007,    and    the   said    application         was     from      the<\/p>\n
     Category “B”, namely the “Fresh Law Graduates.”                               He<\/p>\n
     appeared for the Written Examination on 22nd September,<\/p>\n
     2007, and as he was declared successful in the said<\/p>\n
     examination, he was called for an oral interview which<\/p>\n
     was held on 29th March, 2008 at Nagpur.                       He attended<\/p>\n
     the said interview without any objection by the MPSC.\n<\/p>\n
     6.       On     6th    May,   2008,    the    MPSC       published          the<\/p>\n
     Recommendation List of 155 candidates and the name of<\/p>\n
     the petitioner was shown amongst the candidates whose<\/p>\n
     results were withheld for administrative reasons.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.          On    16th   June,     2008,         a    Show-cause-Notice              was<\/p>\n
     issued to the petitioner with a charge of furnishing<\/p>\n
     incorrect        information      regarding            his     eligibility.            He<\/p>\n
     was, therefore, called upon to submit his explanation;\n<\/p>\n
     failing     which        action        as       per   Clause         5.4      of     the<\/p>\n
     prospectus would be initiated.\n<\/p>\n
     8.          On 3rd July, 2008, the petitioner submitted his<\/p>\n
            he   had<\/p>\n
     detailed reply to the Show-cause-Notice and pointed out<\/p>\n
     that                applied       in    the       category       of     “Fresh       Law<\/p>\n
     Graduates”,       and    as   per       Clause        35     contained         in    the<\/p>\n
     Application Form submitted by him, he had furnished the<\/p>\n
     following information:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “35.1 For Advocate, Attorney or Pleader :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 35.1.1 Registration No. : 3434\/04<\/p>\n
                 35.1.2 Date of Registration : 23-8-04<\/p>\n
                 35.2 : For fresh Law Graduates :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 35.2.1 : Date of Degree : 12-7-04.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 35.2.2 : Percentage of marks at the<\/p>\n
                          Final Year Examination : 57.3%”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.          Despite the reply submitted to the Show-cause-\n<\/p>\n
     Notice, the petitioner’s result was not declared by the<\/p>\n
     MPSC and, therefore, he has filed the instant petition<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span>
\n     under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for<\/p>\n
     the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
                “a]     Issue a Writ of Mandamus or an<\/p>\n
                        order in the like nature to read
\n                        down the eligibility criteria as a
\n                        candidate who had secured 55 per
\n                        cent in Final LL.B. Examination in<\/p>\n
                        Session 2006-07 instead of 10th
\n                        August, 2008, and<\/p>\n
                [b]     direction to the respondents to
\n                        declare the petitioner’s result for<\/p>\n
                        the competitive examination 2007
\n                        for the post of Junior Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
                [c]<\/p>\n
                        and<\/p>\n
                        quash and set aside the Show-cause-\n<\/p>\n
                        Notice dated 16th June, 2008.”\n<\/p>\n
     10.        It is the case of the petitioner that on 10th<\/p>\n
     August, 2007, he             had not completed his practice of<\/p>\n
     three   years     as     an    Advocate      and,     therefore,           he    had<\/p>\n
     applied under Category ‘B’ for “fresh Law Graduates”\n<\/p>\n
     for   selection        to     the    post   of    Junior        Civil       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     However,     by        the     impugned      Show-cause-Notice,                  the<\/p>\n
     Commission       has     held       that    the    petitioner           was      not<\/p>\n
     eligible to apply either in Category ‘A’ for “Advocate,<\/p>\n
     Attorney or Pleader” or in Category ‘B’ for “Fresh Law<\/p>\n
     Graduates” and despite the same, he had submitted his<\/p>\n
     application for selection to the post of Junior Civil<\/p>\n
     Judge, for which he was not eligible to apply and,<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span>
\n     therefore, he was required to submit an explanation as<\/p>\n
     to why he should not be declared ineligible for the<\/p>\n
     said post.\n<\/p>\n
     11.      As pr the petitioner, he is eligible under<\/p>\n
     Category ‘B’ – “Fresh Law Graduates”, and at no point<\/p>\n
     of time, he claimed to have applied in Category ‘A’ for<\/p>\n
     “Advocate, Attorney or Pleader.”             He further states<\/p>\n
     that with reference to the last date to receive the<\/p>\n
     applications, as per the Corrigendum published on 4th<\/p>\n
     August, 2007, the last date to receive the applications<\/p>\n
     was extended to 10th August, 2007 and with reference to<\/p>\n
     the   said   date,   he   had   not   completed       three       years’<\/p>\n
     practice as an Advocate and, therefore, he was eligible<\/p>\n
     in Category ‘B’ for “fresh Law Graduates.”                       In the<\/p>\n
     alternative, it was submitted by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
     for the petitioner that the eligibility criteria with<\/p>\n
     reference to 10th August, 2007 and as set out in the<\/p>\n
     Proclamation\/Corrigendum published by the MPSC must be<\/p>\n
     read down to hold that the applicant, who had passed<\/p>\n
     his Final Year LL.B. Examination in the Academic Year<\/p>\n
     2003-04, be treated as eligible, rather than examining<\/p>\n
     whether he had passed his law examination within three<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         8<\/span>
\n     years with reference to 3rd August, 2007 or 10th August,<\/p>\n
     2007, and if so read, he has to be treated as a Fresh<\/p>\n
     Law Graduate and eligible to apply for the post of<\/p>\n
     Junior Civil Judge. On these grounds, the petitioner<\/p>\n
     prays for a direction to the MPSC to withdraw the Show-\n<\/p>\n
     cause-Notice     and    declare        his     result.        The      learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid<\/p>\n
     down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar<\/p>\n
     8 SCC 182].\n<\/p>\n
     Vs. J & K Public Service Commission & another                          [(2000)<\/p>\n
     12.      The respondent – MPSC has filed an Affidavit-\n<\/p>\n
     in-Reply by its Desk Officer, and it has stated that<\/p>\n
     the Corrigendum was published on 25th July, 2007 and<\/p>\n
     the last date to receive the applications for the post<\/p>\n
     of Junior Civil Judge was extended to 10th August, 2007<\/p>\n
     and the number of posts was increased from 150 to 325<\/p>\n
     and, therefore, the candidates were required to possess<\/p>\n
     the   educational       qualification          and     experience            with<\/p>\n
     reference   to   10th    August,       2007.         In    short,        it     is<\/p>\n
     contended that as on 10th August, 2007, the petitioner<\/p>\n
     ought to have completed three years or more of his<\/p>\n
     practice as an      Advocate, or in the alternative, to<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 9<\/span>
\n     treat him as a Fresh Law Graduate, his result of final<\/p>\n
     year   LL.B.       Examination         ought        to     have       been      declared<\/p>\n
     within three years with reference to 10th August, 2007,<\/p>\n
     so as to hold him eligible                     either in Category ‘A’ or<\/p>\n
     in Category ‘B’.            As per the MPSC, the petitioner does<\/p>\n
     not    fit    into       either       of   these         two      categories           and,<\/p>\n
     therefore, he was not an eligible candidate for the<\/p>\n
     post of Junior Civil Judge as on 10th August, 2007 and<\/p>\n
     question      of<\/p>\n
     consequently, he has to be declared as such and the<\/p>\n
                              declaration           of    his         result         of      the<\/p>\n
     Competitive Examination, 2007, does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          The     moot        question,          that         falls         for      our<\/p>\n
     consideration is, therefore, whether the petitioner was<\/p>\n
     eligible      to     apply       in    Category            ‘B’      –     “Fresh        Law<\/p>\n
     Graduates     as     on 10th August,                2007”       for     the post          of<\/p>\n
     Junior Civil Judge?\n<\/p>\n
     14.          Before we proceed further, let it be noted<\/p>\n
     that    the    petitioner          has     scored           140       marks      in     the<\/p>\n
     selection      as    against       118     marks          scored        by    the      last<\/p>\n
     candidate as shown in the                      Recommendation List of 150<\/p>\n
     candidates         who    have    been     selected            for      the     post      of<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                    10<\/span>
\n     Junior Civil Judge and, therefore, if the petitioner<\/p>\n
     succeeds before us, he would stand at Serial No. 91A in<\/p>\n
     the said list, as per the result provided to us by the<\/p>\n
     learned Additional Govt. Pleader in a sealed cover.\n<\/p>\n
     15.       The impugned selection for the post of Junior<\/p>\n
     Civil Judge has proceeded as per the Bombay Judicial<\/p>\n
     Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, and as amended by the<\/p>\n
     2003.   The<\/p>\n
     Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment [Amendment] Rules,<\/p>\n
                   Bombay   Judicial    Service   Recruitment            Rules<\/p>\n
     [for short the “Bombay Rules”] have now been replaced<\/p>\n
     by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 [“The<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra Rules” for short], and the said Rules have<\/p>\n
     been published in the Notification dated 25th August,<\/p>\n
     2008 and gazetted on 27th August, 2008 and, therefore,<\/p>\n
     all the future selections for the said post shall be as<\/p>\n
     per the Maharashtra Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     16.       By the notification dated 10th December, 2001,<\/p>\n
     Clause (iii-A) to Rule 4 (4) came to be substituted,<\/p>\n
     and subsequently by the notification dated 25th July,<\/p>\n
     2003, Clause [f] was added to Rule 4 [4] (iii-A) of the<\/p>\n
     Bombay Rules, and the same reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
               “(f) Notwithstanding anything contained
\n               in preceding provisions, for appointment<\/p>\n
               to the post of Civil Judge (Junior
\n               Division) and Judicial Magistrate First
\n               Class to be made by nomination, the fresh<\/p>\n
               Law graduates shall also be eligible :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Provided that the candidate is not
\n               less than twenty one years and not more<\/p>\n
               than thirty five years (forty years in the
\n               case of candidate belonging to communities
\n               recognized as Backward by the Government
\n               for the purposes of recruitment).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Explanation.- The expression fresh Law
\n               graduate means a candidate who has secured<\/p>\n
               fifty five per cent marks at final year
\n               LL.B. Examination in the first attempt
\n               within three years of the last date
\n               prescribed for submission of application<\/p>\n
               and who is eligible to be enrolled as an
\n               Advocate whether enrolled as such or not.”
\n               [Emphasis supplied].”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17.      Whether          the      petitioner           satisfied             the<\/p>\n
     definition of “Fresh Law Graduate” as set out in the<\/p>\n
     Explanation      below      Rule   [4]   (4)   (iii-A)         (f)     of     the<\/p>\n
     Bombay   Rules    is     the    question   which        requires         to     be<\/p>\n
     decided, and as per the petitioner, he so falls if the<\/p>\n
     term “within three years of the last date prescribed<\/p>\n
     for   submission       of      application”      is     read       down       and<\/p>\n
     replaced as “within three years with reference to the<\/p>\n
     year in which the proclamation was issued for inviting<\/p>\n
     applications.” The petitioner states that if he has<\/p>\n
     passed the examination held in the Academic Year 2003-\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
     04, he would be eligible for any selection that is<\/p>\n
     undertaken in the year 2007, as he would be a candidate<\/p>\n
     who has passed the Final Year LL.B. Examination within<\/p>\n
     three    years    with   reference      to    the    year       2007.          He<\/p>\n
     further claims that even if the date of reference for<\/p>\n
     deciding the period of three years is treated as 10th<\/p>\n
     August, 2007, he was enrolled with effect from 23rd<\/p>\n
     August, 2004 by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa,<\/p>\n
     and in any case, as on 10th August, 2007, he had not<\/p>\n
     completed his practice as an Advocate for three years<\/p>\n
     and, therefore, he ought to be held as a “Fresh Law<\/p>\n
     Graduate.”\n<\/p>\n
     18.        The Maharashtra Rules, so far as Category ‘B’<\/p>\n
     –     “Fresh   Law    Graduates”     is      concerned,         provide          a<\/p>\n
     different provision regarding the eligibility. Rule 5<\/p>\n
     (3) (b) reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “(b)      Experience .- Must have practised
\n                          as an Advocate in the High Court or
\n                          Courts subordinate thereto for not<\/p>\n
                          less than three   years on the date
\n                          of publication of advertisement; or<\/p>\n
                          Must be a fresh Law Graduate who,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          (i) has secured the degree in law
\n                          by passing all the examinations
\n                          leading to the degree in the first
\n                          attempt;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
                           (ii) has secured in the final year
\n                           examination of the degree in Law or<\/p>\n
                           in the case of candidates holding
\n                           Master’s Degree in Law in final
\n                           year exam, not less than fifty five<\/p>\n
                           percent marks; …..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                In the above stated Rule of the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Rules, the explanation or definition of the term “Fresh<\/p>\n
     Law Graduate” has not been specified as to mean the one<\/p>\n
     who has passed his law degree within three years on the<\/p>\n
     last<\/p>\n
     and,
\n             date<\/p>\n
             therefore,<\/p>\n
                     prescribed<\/p>\n
                             the
\n                                    for     submission<\/p>\n
                                   controversy,        as
\n                                                             of<\/p>\n
                                                             raised
\n                                                                   applications<\/p>\n
                                                                          in     this<\/p>\n
     petition based on the Bombay Rules, is, hopefully, not<\/p>\n
     likely to arise in future in the selections for the<\/p>\n
     post of Junior Civil Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     19.        In     the     instant         case,        admittedly,           the<\/p>\n
     petitioner has passed his LL.B. Final Year Examination<\/p>\n
     in the first attempt and he has scored 57.3 per cent<\/p>\n
     marks     in    the    said    examination.         The      results        were<\/p>\n
     declared on 3rd July, 2004 and the last date to receive<\/p>\n
     the     applications     was    10th      August,      2007.      The       term<\/p>\n
     “within three years of the last date prescribed for<\/p>\n
     submission       of     applications”        is     required           to      be<\/p>\n
     interpreted appropriately in the light of the object<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                            14<\/span>
\n     leading    to    introduction         of   amended          rule.       Effect        of<\/p>\n
     improper    reading         of    said        rule      which        results          in<\/p>\n
     defeating the purpose and object underlying amendment<\/p>\n
     of rule is also required to be visualised.\n<\/p>\n
     20.        It was quite possible that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
     result could have eventually been declared either on<\/p>\n
     4th August, 2004, or on or after 10th August, 2004, he<\/p>\n
     could be called as “a Fresh Law Graduate.” Therefore,<\/p>\n
     according to the petitioner, the period of three years<\/p>\n
     should be counted with reference to the date of his<\/p>\n
     enrollment, namely 23rd August, 2004, and if so counted<\/p>\n
     with reference to 10th August, 2007, he is a Fresh Law<\/p>\n
     Graduate,       as    he    did   not      complete          three       years        of<\/p>\n
     practice    as       an    Advocate      as    on      10th      August,        2007.\n<\/p>\n
     Whereas the Commission has relied upon the Instructions<\/p>\n
     below Clause 3.2 of the proclamations dated 4th July,<\/p>\n
     2007 as well as 3rd August, 2007, and the Clause 1) of<\/p>\n
     the said Instructions reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “1)   The   academic   qualifications   &
\n                 experience acquired upto the last date
\n                 prescribed for receipt of applications
\n                 will only be taken into account in
\n                 determining the eligibility of candidates
\n                 for the posts and for further selection.
\n                 Academic qualifications shall be deemed
\n                 to have been acquired on the date on<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          15<\/span>
\n                  which   the  result   to   the  relevant
\n                  examination has been declared by the<\/p>\n
                  Competent Authority.” [Emphasis supplied
\n                  by us].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21.      From the above Instruction, it appears that<\/p>\n
     the academic qualifications have to be considered with<\/p>\n
     reference to the date of publication of the result of<\/p>\n
     the Final Year LL.B. Examination for the purpose of<\/p>\n
     deciding whether the petitioner had passed his Final<\/p>\n
     Year LL.B. Examination within three years of the last<\/p>\n
     date prescribed for submission of applications.                        Based<\/p>\n
     on these instructions, it is the case of the MPSC that<\/p>\n
     the petitioner’s result having been published on 4th<\/p>\n
     July,   2004     and    the     last      date    to      receive          the<\/p>\n
     applications    being       10th August,    2007,      or    3rd August,<\/p>\n
     2007,   he   cannot    be    held    to   have   passed        his     LL.B.\n<\/p>\n
     Examination within three years of either 3rd August,<\/p>\n
     2007 or 10th August, 2007. On this sole ground, the<\/p>\n
     MPSC has held that the petitioner is ineligible as he<\/p>\n
     cannot be called as “a Fresh Law Graduate” as defined<\/p>\n
     in the Bombay Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     22.      It was also submitted before us by the learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the Petitioner that the Instructions quoted<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    16<\/span>
\n     above must be given a purposive interpretation, rather<\/p>\n
     than     going        by     the     literal             meaning          of     the     said<\/p>\n
     Instructions.               The     learned             Counsel       submitted          that<\/p>\n
     Clause ‘A’ for “Advocates, Attorneys and Pleaders” and<\/p>\n
     Clause    ‘B’      for       “Fresh       Advocates”            must        be    read       in<\/p>\n
     exclusion       of     each        other,          in     as    much        as,    if       any<\/p>\n
     candidate, who appeared for the law examination held in<\/p>\n
     April-May,         2004,      and        if    his        result          was     declared<\/p>\n
     subsequently<\/p>\n
     treated    as      a<\/p>\n
                            either<\/p>\n
                                “Fresh
\n                                         in<\/p>\n
                                           Law
\n                                                June\/July,<\/p>\n
                                                    Graduate”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       he<\/p>\n
                                                                          if
\n                                                                               ought<\/p>\n
                                                                                 he    has
\n                                                                                            to    be<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 not<\/p>\n
     completed a period of three years of practice as an<\/p>\n
     Advocate      on       the    last        date          fixed        to     receive         the<\/p>\n
     applications, and if any candidate so passing the LL.B.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Examination has completed three years of practice as an<\/p>\n
     Advocate,        he        cannot     be       called          as      “a      fresh        Law<\/p>\n
     Graduate.”         It was further contended that taking into<\/p>\n
     consideration          the     date      on        which       the     result      of       the<\/p>\n
     relevant examination is declared,                              counting the period<\/p>\n
     of three years is too technical and it does not serve<\/p>\n
     the main purpose of providing an opportunity to the<\/p>\n
     fresh law graduate for competing for the post of Junior<\/p>\n
     Civil Judge and the purpose for which such a provision<\/p>\n
     has    been        introduced             in        the        Shetty           Commission<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          17<\/span>
\n     Recommendations and approved by the Supreme Court by<\/p>\n
     its Judicial Order, is totally defeated.\n<\/p>\n
     23.        In   the   case    of     Sanjay     Dhar       [supra],          the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Rule 9<\/p>\n
     of the J & K Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules<\/p>\n
     “for purposive construction.”               One of the eligibility<\/p>\n
     conditions as laid down by Rule 9 in Sanjay Dhar’s case<\/p>\n
     was that a candidate for recruitment to the service<\/p>\n
     must have put in at least two years’ practice at Bar by<\/p>\n
     the date on which he submits his application for such<\/p>\n
     recruitment, and must produce a Certificate to that<\/p>\n
     effect from the District Judge within the local limits<\/p>\n
     of whose jurisdiction, he works at the Bar.                      Mr. Sanjay<\/p>\n
     Dhar obtained the Certificate from the Registrar of the<\/p>\n
     High Court of Delhi, as he was practising in the said<\/p>\n
     High Court from October, 1990 onwards, though he was<\/p>\n
     enrolled as an Advocate on 29th January, 1990.                             This<\/p>\n
     Certificate     was   held    to    be   invalid,       as    it     was     not<\/p>\n
     issued by the District Judge.               Subsequently, the said<\/p>\n
     Certificate     was   also     endorsed       by     the       District          &<\/p>\n
     Sessions    Judge,    Delhi    on    17th    March,       1993.       Despite<\/p>\n
     this,   the     Public   Service         Commission        rejected          his<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                     18<\/span>
\n     application. The Supreme Court held that certification<\/p>\n
     by the Registrar, High Court of Delhi, and further<\/p>\n
     endorsement by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi,<\/p>\n
     fulfilled the requirement of Rule 9 in its spirit, and<\/p>\n
     it could not be held that the certificate originally<\/p>\n
     issued by the Registrar, High Court of Delhi, could not<\/p>\n
     meet the requirements of Rule 9.\n<\/p>\n
     24.
\n             The main issue, which was considered by the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court, was whether the certificate of practice<\/p>\n
     furnished by Mr. Sanjay Dhar satisfied the requirement<\/p>\n
     of Rule 9, and if so, whether Mr. Sanjay Dhar was<\/p>\n
     wrongfully      denied   the    appointment         in       1992-93<\/p>\n
     examination, and the said questions were answered in<\/p>\n
     the affirmative.     In Para 14 of the said decision, the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “14. Rule 9 of the J & K Civil Service
\n                  [Judicial] Recruitment Rules, 1967 must
\n                  receive   a   purposive    interpretation.
\n                  Purposive      interpretation      enables
\n                  ascertaining the purpose of enactment,<\/p>\n
                  the object sought to be achieved and the
\n                  mischief sought to be taken care of or
\n                  prevented. The object of the Rule is to
\n                  exclude lawyers not in actual practice,
\n                  and hence inexperienced, from entering
\n                  judicial service. At the same time the
\n                  Rule cannot be so construed as to create
\n                  an anomalous situation by asking the
\n                  District Judge to certify the period of<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                    19<\/span>
\n                 practice of a lawyer practising in High
\n                 Court and not in the District Courts,<\/p>\n
                 “based on his personal knowledge or
\n                 official records of the District Courts”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 – as J & K PSC wanted the appellant to<\/p>\n
                 do.   A literal compliance, if insisted
\n                 on, may defeat the object to be achieved
\n                 by the Rule itself.    If an advocate is
\n                 practising exclusively in the High Court,<\/p>\n
                 the District Judge would not have any
\n                 material available in his records to
\n                 verify the factum and the period of
\n                 actual practice of any applicant.     The
\n                 Registrar of the High Court would be the<\/p>\n
                 best-suited person to issue a certificate
\n                 in   that    regard   and    since   Rule<\/p>\n
                 contemplates the requisite certificate
\n                 being issued by the District Judge, the
\n                 underlying object sought to be achieved
\n                 by the Rule would be fulfilled if the<\/p>\n
                 Certificate issued by the Registrar is
\n                 countersigned by the District Judge or
\n                 the District Judge issues a Certificate
\n                 of his own based on the certificate
\n                 issued by the Registrar. …..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     25.        Relying upon the above stated decision in the<\/p>\n
     case of Sanjay Dhar [supra], it was submitted before us<\/p>\n
     that considering the date of result of the examination<\/p>\n
     as the starting point to count the period of three<\/p>\n
     years to decide the eligibility of fresh law graduates<\/p>\n
     in isolation would defeat the purpose of providing an<\/p>\n
     opportunity to such law graduates who otherwise do not<\/p>\n
     complete    the   minimum   three   years’     practice          as     an<\/p>\n
     Advocate on the last date prescribed for submission of<\/p>\n
     applications.     It was pointed out that even if all the<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                            20<\/span>
\n     students appear for the same examination, it may happen<\/p>\n
     that the results may be declared on different dates,<\/p>\n
     if,    for     some    reason,      some   candidates’          results         are<\/p>\n
     withheld and declared subsequently. It can also happen<\/p>\n
     that     results        of     Summer      or     Winter         Session          of<\/p>\n
     examinations      of    different       Universities          may      vary     and<\/p>\n
     result in respect to any candidates also can-may be<\/p>\n
     delayed.       Exact date of declaration of result would be<\/p>\n
     a point which would take a back seat while construing<\/p>\n
     the eligibility clause of permitting candidates having<\/p>\n
     less than 3 years’ tenure either of practice or no<\/p>\n
     practice, but having eligibility for enrollment.\n<\/p>\n
     26.          If the result was declared on 4th July, 2004,<\/p>\n
     as has happened in the case of the petitioner, it is<\/p>\n
     possible that another candidate, who appeared for the<\/p>\n
     examination       along      with    the   petitioner,           and     in     the<\/p>\n
     eventuality       of    his     result      being       declared         on     11th<\/p>\n
     August,      2004,     would    be   held       eligible,       whereas         the<\/p>\n
     petitioner would not be so held, despite the fact that<\/p>\n
     both had not completed three years of practice and,<\/p>\n
     thus, it will lead to inequality in law and, therefore,<\/p>\n
     denial    of    equal     opportunity       as    has     been      guaranteed<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          21<\/span>
\n     under Article 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     27.         It was further submitted that in any case, the<\/p>\n
     petitioner has taken punctual steps to seek enrollment<\/p>\n
     by submitting his application to the Bar Council of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra & Goa on 5th August, 2004 after he obtained<\/p>\n
     the    Provisional      Degree     Certificate            issued         by     the<\/p>\n
     University     on   12th   July,     2004,       and      he     came      to     be<\/p>\n
     enrolled     withig  effect      from     23rd     August,<\/p>\n
     learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
\n                                                                        2004.        The<\/p>\n
     concept of “interpretation for purposive construction”\n<\/p>\n
     would be defeated in the instant case if the claim of<\/p>\n
     MPSC   is    accepted      that     the    petitioner             is     neither<\/p>\n
     eligible in Category ‘A’ for Advocates, Attorneys or<\/p>\n
     Pleaders, nor in Category ‘B’ for fresh Law Graduates.\n<\/p>\n
     He would, thus, be excluded from both the categories,<\/p>\n
     which is not the purpose of providing the definition of<\/p>\n
     “Fresh Law Graduates”, though he withstands all other<\/p>\n
     tests applicable to the fresh law graduates’ category<\/p>\n
     prescribed     in   the    Bombay       Rules,      urged       the      learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     28.         On the other hand, as per the MPSC, in the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                               22<\/span>
\n     proclamation      issued       by    it,      there     was       no   ambiguity<\/p>\n
     leaving any scope for doubt or a different opinion<\/p>\n
     while     deciding       the        eligibility          for       “Fresh         Law<\/p>\n
     Graduates”.       It was pointed out that the Instructions<\/p>\n
     very clearly said that the period of three years                                will<\/p>\n
     start commencing from the date of publication of the<\/p>\n
     result and it will be counted with reference to the<\/p>\n
     last date prescribed for submission of applications.\n<\/p>\n
     The     MPSC      \n                    claims    that        the      petitioner's\n\n<\/pre>\n
     declared on 3rd July, 2004, and as on 3rd August, 2007
\n                                                                         result        was<\/p>\n
     or on 10th August, 2007, he could not be held to have<\/p>\n
     passed the LL.B. Examination within three years and,<\/p>\n
     therefore,       ineligible         to     apply      as      a    “Fresh         Law<\/p>\n
     Graduate.”       At the same time, he was enrolled with the<\/p>\n
     Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa on 23rd August, 2004<\/p>\n
     and, thus, did not complete three years’ practice as on<\/p>\n
     10th   August,    2007   and        was,      therefore,       ineligible           to<\/p>\n
     apply even in Category ‘A’ for Advocates, Attorneys and<\/p>\n
     Pleaders.      On these grounds, the MPSC urges that                              its<\/p>\n
     decision to hold the petitioner ineligible to apply for<\/p>\n
     the post of Junior Civil Judge cannot be termed as<\/p>\n
     erroneous or perverse, and if that be so, it cannot<\/p>\n
     call for any interference in a Writ Petition under<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                            23<\/span>
\n     Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     29.          In the case of All India Judges’ Association<\/p>\n
     [(1993) 4 SCC 288], the Supreme Court had observed that<\/p>\n
     in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant<\/p>\n
     must be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 4 (4) of the Bombay Rules came to be amended by<\/p>\n
     the Notification dated 10th December, 2001 in keeping<\/p>\n
     with this requirement of minimum three years’ standing<\/p>\n
     of an Advocate seeking to enter the judicial service.\n<\/p>\n
     On    21st   March,    1996,       the   Govt.     of    India        passed        a<\/p>\n
     Resolution, pursuant to the directions issued by the<\/p>\n
     Supreme      Court,     to     constitute        the      first        National<\/p>\n
     Judicial Pay Commission under the chairmanship of Mr.<\/p>\n
     Justice K.J. Shetty, and the Commission submitted its<\/p>\n
     report on 11th November, 1999.                   The said report was<\/p>\n
     placed before the Supreme Court for approval, and the<\/p>\n
     Supreme      Court     in    the    case    of     All      India        Judges’<\/p>\n
     Association Vs. Union of India [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]<\/p>\n
     considered       the        said    report,       and        with        certain<\/p>\n
     modifications, accepted and approved it.                      In para 32, a<\/p>\n
     three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “32. …..With the passage of time,
\n                   experience has shown that the best talent<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                       24<\/span>
\n                  which is available is not attracted to
\n                  the judicial service. A bright young law<\/p>\n
                  graduate after 3 years of practice finds
\n                  the   judicial   service    not    attractive
\n                  enough.   It has been recommended by the<\/p>\n
                  Shetty   Commission   after     taking   into
\n                  consideration the views expressed before
\n                  it by various authorities, that the need
\n                  for an applicant to have been an advocate<\/p>\n
                  for at least 3 years should be done away
\n                  with. After taking all the circumstances
\n                  into   consideration,    we    accept    this
\n                  recommendation of the Shetty Commission
\n                  and the argument of the learned amicus<\/p>\n
                  curiae that it should be no longer
\n                  mandatory for an applicant desirous of<\/p>\n
                  entering the judicial service to be an
\n                  advocate   of   at   least    three
\n                  standing. We, accordingly, in the light
\n                                                         years’<\/p>\n
                  of experience gained after the Judgment<\/p>\n
                  in All India Judges case direct to the
\n                  High Courts and to the State Governments
\n                  to amend their rules so as to enable a
\n                  fresh law graduate who may not even have
\n                  put in three years of practice, to be<\/p>\n
                  eligible to compete and enter judicial
\n                  service. We, however, recommend that a<\/p>\n
                  fresh recruit into the judicial service
\n                  should be imparted training of not less
\n                  than one year, preferably two years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     30.         It is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was<\/p>\n
     not    in    favour    of   continuing      with        the       earlier<\/p>\n
     requirement of at least three years’ standing for an<\/p>\n
     advocate to enter the judicial service, and it intended<\/p>\n
     to relax the said requirement.           Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
     accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission<\/p>\n
     that   “it    should   be   no   longer     mandatory”            for      an<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                        25<\/span>
\n     applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to<\/p>\n
     be an advocate of at least three years’ standing and<\/p>\n
     it,   therefore,     directed     the   High    Courts        and     State<\/p>\n
     Governments to amend their Rules so as to enable a<\/p>\n
     fresh law graduate who may not even have put in three<\/p>\n
     years of practice to be eligible for competing and<\/p>\n
     entering the judicial service.            It is obvious that the<\/p>\n
     Apex Court did not state that a fresh law graduate<\/p>\n
     means a graduate who has not practised as an Advocate,<\/p>\n
     and all that it intended to convey was a fresh law<\/p>\n
     graduate means an Advocate who does not have three<\/p>\n
     years of practice, for being eligible to compete and<\/p>\n
     enter the judicial service.\n<\/p>\n
     31.       In keeping with this mandate, the Bombay Rules<\/p>\n
     came to be amended by the Notification dated 25th July,<\/p>\n
     2003 as noted herein above, and the Explanation below<\/p>\n
     Clause (f) of Rule 4 (4) (iii-A) of the said Rules<\/p>\n
     states that a fresh law graduate means a candidate who<\/p>\n
     has   secured   55   per   cent   marks    at    Final      Year      LL.B.\n<\/p>\n
     Examination in the first attempt within three years of<\/p>\n
     the last date prescribed for submission of applications<\/p>\n
     and who is eligible to be enrolled as an Advocate,<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          26<\/span>
\n     whether enrolled as such or not.                    This definition as<\/p>\n
     well     as     Instructions        below        Clause       3.2       of      the<\/p>\n
     Proclamation\/Advertisement             dated        3rd      August,          2007<\/p>\n
     released by the MPSC must be understood and read in the<\/p>\n
     spirit    of    the     above    observations        made      by     the     Apex<\/p>\n
     Court, so as to provide an opportunity to talented<\/p>\n
     advocates to enter judicial service, even though they<\/p>\n
     do not fulfill the requirement of minimum three years’<\/p>\n
     standing.\n<\/p>\n
     32.           In our considered opinion, the Explanation and<\/p>\n
     the Instructions must be read down so as to be in<\/p>\n
     conformity       with    the    intention    to      enable        bright       law<\/p>\n
     graduates, who did not have the minimum of three years’<\/p>\n
     standing and those who are eligible to be enrolled as<\/p>\n
     advocates,       whether       enrolled     or    not,       to     enter       the<\/p>\n
     judicial       service,    and     such     talented         law     graduates<\/p>\n
     should    not    be     prevented    from    entering          the     judicial<\/p>\n
     service by adopting a hyper-technical approach                               while<\/p>\n
     considering the requirements of eligibility in terms of<\/p>\n
     “Category ‘B’ for fresh law graduates”, as held by the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar [supra].\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                         27<\/span><\/p>\n
     33.        While        interpreting     the     provisions            of     the<\/p>\n
     Explanation below Rule 4 (4) (f) (iii-A) of the Bombay<\/p>\n
     Rules and the Instructions in the advertisement, we<\/p>\n
     must adopt the approach of ‘purposive interpretation’<\/p>\n
     which will enable the fresh law graduates who do not<\/p>\n
     have a minimum three years’ standing and have secured<\/p>\n
     more than 55 per cent marks in the Final Year LL.B.\n<\/p>\n
     Examination,       to    enter   the   judicial       service.         If     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner has passed the final year LL.B. Examination<\/p>\n
     held at any time prior to April\/May, 2004, say, for<\/p>\n
     example,    the     examination        held    in    October\/November,<\/p>\n
     2003, we would not have taken a similar view.\n<\/p>\n
     34.        Writ Petition No. 4308 of 2007 filed by Ms.<\/p>\n
     Neena Bhatia came to be allowed by this Court on 21st<\/p>\n
     November, 2008, and we held that the said petitioner<\/p>\n
     had completed three years’ practice as on 10th August,<\/p>\n
     2007 and, therefore, was eligible to apply for the post<\/p>\n
     of Junior Civil Judge from the category of Advocates<\/p>\n
     with three years’ law practice, namely “Category ‘A’<\/p>\n
     for Advocates, Attorneys and Pleaders.”                    Ms. Bhatia had<\/p>\n
     also appeared for the Final Year LL.B. Examination held<\/p>\n
     in April-May, 2004, and the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                           28<\/span>
\n     Nagpur University had declared her result on 7th June,<\/p>\n
     2004.   She    completed       all     the       three        years        of     law<\/p>\n
     examination with an average of 60.89 per cent marks,<\/p>\n
     and she had applied for enrollment with the Bar Council<\/p>\n
     of Maharashtra and Goa and came to be enrolled as an<\/p>\n
     advocate with effect from 30th July, 2004. The MPSC had<\/p>\n
     withheld her result on the grounds similar to that of<\/p>\n
     the present petitioner.             The MPSC held that Ms. Bhatia<\/p>\n
     did not meet the requirements of minimum three years’<\/p>\n
     practice as an advocate with reference to 3rd August,<\/p>\n
     2007 or 10th August, 2007.            We repelled this ground and<\/p>\n
     directed the Secretary of the MPSC to incorporate the<\/p>\n
     said    petitioner’s         name     in     the       list       of     selected<\/p>\n
     candidates     for     the     post        of    Junior         Civil        Judge,<\/p>\n
     forthwith, and intimate to the Registrar General of<\/p>\n
     this Court her name as a selected candidate for the<\/p>\n
     said appointment.\n<\/p>\n
     35.       In     the   instant       case,        the      petitioner           also<\/p>\n
     appeared for the LL.B. Final Year Examination held in<\/p>\n
     April-May,     2004;    but     the        Sant        Gadgebaba         Amravati<\/p>\n
     University had declared his result on 3rd July, 2004,<\/p>\n
     i.e.,   almost    after      three     to       four    weeks       the      Nagpur<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          29<\/span>
\n     University declared the Final Year LL.B. Examination<\/p>\n
     results and, therefore, despite the fact of obtaining<\/p>\n
     the provisional degree Certificate on 12th July, 2004,<\/p>\n
     the petitioner came to be enrolled with effect from<\/p>\n
     23rd August, 2004. Though the petitioner cannot be said<\/p>\n
     to    have    a   minimum   three    years    of     practice          as     an<\/p>\n
     Advocate, at the same time, he cannot be excluded from<\/p>\n
     the “Category of Fresh Law Graduates”, if regards be<\/p>\n
     had to the above observations made by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
     All India Judges’ Association case.                  We must adopt a<\/p>\n
     ‘purposive interpretation’ of the definition of “Fresh<\/p>\n
     Law Graduates with less than three years’ practice”, so<\/p>\n
     as to enable bright law graduates to enter the judicial<\/p>\n
     service.      As noted earlier, the petitioner has scored<\/p>\n
     140 out of 250 marks, and had his result been not<\/p>\n
     withheld, his name would have appeared at Serial No.<\/p>\n
     91A in the list of 155 selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n
     36.          Even otherwise, in the instant case, the MPSC<\/p>\n
     did not take any objection regarding eligibility of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner while scrutinizing his application, and he<\/p>\n
     was allowed to appear for the Written Test as well as<\/p>\n
     the oral interview without any objection.                      It is only<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                          30<\/span>
\n     when the final selection list was published, his name<\/p>\n
     appeared in the candidates whose results were withheld,<\/p>\n
     and      subsequently        the    impugned        Show-cause-Notice<\/p>\n
     followed.       As such we do not find any fault on the part<\/p>\n
     of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     37.           In the premises, we allow this petition and<\/p>\n
     hold that the petitioner was eligible to apply for the<\/p>\n
     post     of
\n                     Junior    Civil     Judge    in     response<\/p>\n
     Proclamation\/Advertisement published on 4th July, 2007
\n                                                                           to     the<\/p>\n
     by the MPSC, in the category of “Fresh Law Graduates”,<\/p>\n
     namely Category ‘B’, in keeping with the requirements<\/p>\n
     of Rule 4 (4) (f) (iii-A) of the Bombay Rules. We,<\/p>\n
     therefore, direct the MPSC to declare the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
     result    for    the     Competitive     Examination-2007            for     the<\/p>\n
     post of Junior Civil Judge, and we hereby quash and set<\/p>\n
     aside     the    Show-cause-Notice          dated    16th      June,       2008<\/p>\n
     issued    to    the    petitioner    by     the   MPSC.        We     further<\/p>\n
     direct the Secretary\/Deputy Secretary of the MPSC to<\/p>\n
     incorporate the name of the petitioner in the List of<\/p>\n
     Selected Candidates for the post of Junior Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
     forthwith, and intimate to the Registrar General of<\/p>\n
     this Court the name of the petitioner as a selected<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                 31<\/span>
\n     candidate for the said appointment, as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
     possible, and preferably before 20th December, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
               Rule is made absolute in the above terms, but<\/p>\n
     without any order as to costs.      Writ to go to the MPSC<\/p>\n
     forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
               JUDGE    ig                                 JUDGE\n                      \n                             -0-0-0-0-\n\n     |hedau|\n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:06:59 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A. H. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3060 of 2008 Pravin son of Moharao Unhale, aged about 29 years, occupation – Lawyer, resident of Lahan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-02T10:26:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T10:26:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5627,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T10:26:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-02T10:26:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T10:26:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":5627,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008","name":"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T10:26:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-son-of-moharao-unhale-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pravin Son Of Moharao Unhale vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}