Supreme Court’s junk requirement Telangana rules require proficiency in civil judge postal service in Telugu

The petitioner’s lawyer said before the top court seat that 15% of Telangana’s population is Urdu. File | Image source: Hindu

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea on Monday (April 28, 2025), challenging an order that adheres to the 2023 rules requiring proficiency in Telugu in order to qualify for the civil judgeship position in Telangana.

Justices Br Gavai and Augustine George Masih told the petitioner’s lawyer: “(the rules) only say you need to know Telugu.”

The petitioner is a practicing advocate who applied for the position of civil judge according to an April 2024 notice.

Prior to the Telangana High Court, he challenged Rules 5.3 and 7 (i) of the Telangana National Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, which are the 2023 language requirements.

The petitioner also seeks an instruction to provide an option to master in Telugu or Urdu as a qualification as a civil judge, in addition to providing an option to convert from English to Telugu or Urdu and vice versa, written examinations under the 2023 rules.

The petitioner’s lawyer said before the top court seat that 15% of Telangana’s population is Urdu.

The lawyer said his client cleared the pass exam.

However, the bench refused to review the defense and dismissed it.

In Telangana HC, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that since Urdu was granted status as the second official language of the state, no choice with Urdu or Telugu was provided, which was arbitrary and unjust, and no civil judge recruitment rules were provided.

“This is a condition for determining services, qualifications and qualifications in the employer’s province. Employers are the best judges to decide on these aspects. The scope of judicial review on these aspects is very limited.”

The HC added that it cannot be said that the provisions of the recruitment rules involved are arbitrary, discriminatory or violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

In dismissing the plea, the HC said since the authorities’ decision was “policy decision” to improve judicial management, which could not be knocked down just because of another viewpoint possible.