Legal Review and Analysis of Usha Kiran Kashatri and Ors etc vs The State of Telangana & Ors 2025 INSC 1169
1. Heading of the Judgment
Usha Kiran Kashatri and Ors. etc. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1169 (Non-Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
This judgment primarily involves the interpretation of the following constitutional and statutory provisions:
Article 233 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the appointment of district judges.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to equality before the law.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Confers writ jurisdiction on High Courts.
The Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023: Specifically, Rule 2(k) (Definition of "High Court") and Rule 5(5.1)(a) (Eligibility criteria for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge).
3. Basic Judgment Details
This case was a batch of civil appeals, special leave petitions, and a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court. The appellants/petitioners were advocates who had applied for direct recruitment to the posts of District Judge (Entry Level) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Telangana State Judicial Service. Their candidatures were rejected by the Telangana High Court authorities for not meeting a specific eligibility criterion mandated by the 2023 Rules. They challenged the rejection orders passed by the Telangana High Court, which had dismissed their writ petitions.
4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment
The Central Legal Issue
The core question before the Supreme Court was: Whether the eligibility criterion prescribed under the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023—which required an advocate to have been "practicing as an Advocate in the High Court or Courts working under the control of the High Court for not less than 7 years" (with "High Court" defined exclusively as the High Court for the State of Telangana)—was valid, and if so, whether the appellants/petitioners could be barred from the recruitment process for lacking this specific requirement?
The Supreme Court's Analysis and Disposition
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals and petitions without delivering a conclusive verdict on the legal questions raised. Instead, it adopted a unique, pragmatic approach to resolve the impasse.
A. The Factual Controversy and the High Court's Stand
The dispute originated from the introduction of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023. Rule 5(5.1)(a) required 7 years of practice as an advocate "in the High Court or Courts working under the control of the High Court." Crucially, Rule 2(k) defined "High Court" to mean only the High Court for the State of Telangana. This definition effectively excluded advocates who had practiced for the requisite period in other High Courts or in courts under the control of other High Courts.
The appellants/petitioners, who were advocates practicing in other states, argued that this rule was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Telangana High Court, in its impugned judgment, upheld the validity of the Rules, stating that they were not in contravention of Article 233 and that the definition was specific and clear. Consequently, it dismissed the writ petitions, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
B. The Supreme Court's Pragmatic Resolution Instead of a Legal Pronouncement
Notably, the Supreme Court's order does not contain a detailed analysis or a final ruling on the constitutional validity of the Rules. After hearing lengthy arguments from both sides and reserving judgment, the Court took a distinctive step.
The Court revealed that during the proceedings, it had suggested certain "alternatives" to the Telangana High Court (acting through its learned senior counsel) to resolve the matter. The Court requested the High Court to consider these suggestions with the explicit rider that any favourable outcome for the appellants would not set a legal precedent.
C. The Consent-Based Outcome
The Telangana High Court, in a gesture of accommodation, accepted the Supreme Court's suggestion. It communicated via supplementary submissions that it had "no objection to declare the results and to appoint such of the appellants/petitioners... who have qualified the 2023 recruitment examination... as an exceptional case without unsettling the 2023 Rules."
Appreciating this stand, the Supreme Court then passed final orders based on this consensus. The Court explicitly stated that all questions of law raised in the petitions were "kept open," meaning it did not decide whether the Rules were constitutional or not. The resolution was purely fact-specific and based on the High Court's concession.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
Based on the consent given by the Telangana High Court, the Supreme Court issued the following directions to resolve the matter:
Declaration of Results and Appointment: The Telangana High Court was directed to declare the results of the appellants/petitioners who had participated in the 2023 recruitment examination for District Judges. For those who qualified, the High Court was to verify their credentials and offer them letters of appointment.
Timeline: This process was to be completed within two months from the date of receiving the Supreme Court's order.
Non-Precedent Setting: The order was explicitly confined to the facts and circumstances of this specific batch of cases and was not to be treated as a precedent for future cases.
Conditions for Appointment:
The appointed candidates would not be entitled to any arrears of monetary benefits.
Their seniority would be determined based on their actual dates of appointment, meaning they would be junior to candidates already appointed under the regular process.Similar Relief for Civil Judge Aspirants: A similar direction was issued for the writ petitioners who had participated in the examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to an earlier interim order of the Supreme Court.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Usha Kiran Kashatri and Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., the Supreme Court primarily resolved the dispute by?
a) Striking down the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 as unconstitutional.
b) Upholding the validity of the Rules and dismissing the appeals.
c) Directing the appointment of the petitioners as a special case based on the High Court's consent, without deciding the legal questions.
d) Remanding the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing.
Answer: c) Directing the appointment of the petitioners as a special case based on the High Court's consent, without deciding the legal questions.
Question 2: A key condition attached to the appointment of the appellants as District Judges, as directed by the Supreme Court, was that?
a) They would be entitled to full arrears of salary from the date of the original notification.
b) Their appointment would not be treated as a precedent for future cases.
c) They would be granted seniority over candidates already appointed.
d) The Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 would be amended accordingly.
Answer: b) Their appointment would not be treated as a precedent for future cases.