SC Allows Out-of-State Lawyers to Be Appointed as District and Civil Judges in Telangana

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, on September 26, 2025, disposed of a batch of civil appeals, special leave petitions, and a connected writ petition filed by advocates challenging their exclusion from the recruitment process.

In April 2023, the State of Telangana issued a notification inviting applications for 11 posts of District Judge (Entry Level). The rules framed in June 2023 mandated that only those practicing for at least seven years in the Telangana High Court or subordinate courts under its jurisdiction would be eligible. The definition of “High Court,” as per the rules, specifically meant the Telangana High Court established after bifurcation in 2014.

As a result, several aspirants, including Usha Kiran Kshatri and others, found their applications rejected on the ground that they were not practicing in Telangana. Contesting this disqualification, the petitioners moved the High Court, contending that the rules were arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to Article 233 of the Constitution which governs judicial appointments.

However, on December 27, 2023, the Telangana High Court dismissed their pleas. The High Court upheld the validity of the rules, stating that the prescription of seven years of practice in Telangana courts was not unconstitutional. It further held that the rules operated retrospectively from January 1, 2023, and that the petitioners, lacking the required practice in the State, were rightly excluded.

During the pendency of proceedings, the petitioners had been allowed to take the written examination and were later called for interview. Still dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, they approached the Supreme Court.

The apex court, after hearing extensive arguments and reserving judgment, asked the High Court to consider alternatives. In its subsequent affidavit, the Telangana High Court conveyed it had “no objection” to declaring the results of the petitioners and appointing those who qualified as an exceptional case, provided the integrity of the 2023 Rules remained unaffected.

Accepting this stand, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to announce the results and, after verification of credentials, issue appointment letters to those who qualified. The court, however, laid down specific caveats: the appointments would be treated as an exceptional measure; the appointees would not be entitled to arrears of salary; and their seniority would commence only from the date of appointment, ranking below candidates already appointed.

The bench further extended similar relief to petitioners in a connected writ who had sought eligibility for civil judge posts despite lacking enrolment certificates from Telangana Bar Associations. Their results, earlier withheld, will now also be processed.

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that its decision was confined strictly to the peculiar facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent. All larger questions of law regarding the interpretation of Article 233 and the validity of the 2023 Rules have been left open for future consideration.