SC to hear on Sept 23 issue concerning eligibility of judicial officers for appointment as ADJ

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will commence hearing from September 23 on a key question whether a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years in the Bar prior to joining a Bench, is entitled to become an Additional District Judge (ADJ) in view of a vacancy.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran will commence the hearing on September 23 and hear arguments over three days, till September 25.

The key question for adjudication is whether a judicial officer, who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining judicial service, can be considered for appointment as a district judge against vacancies earmarked for advocates under Bar quota.

Article 233 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of district judges and reads: “Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the governor of the State in consultation with the high court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.

“A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.”

While fixing the schedule, the CJI said, “We will first hear those who are supporting the proposition, then others will respond. Each side will get one-and-a-half days”.

The Bench appointed advocate Ajay Kumar Singh as the nodal counsel for those supporting the proposition, while lawyer John Mathew was named nodal counsel for the opposing side.

The counsels have been directed to prepare a common “convenience compilation” to ensure smooth proceedings.

The Bench said it will have to examine whether the combined experience of practice at the Bar and subsequent judicial service can be counted toward eligibility.

The CJI, however, cautioned against an interpretation that could lead to “a situation where a person with just two years’ practice becomes eligible.”

The posts of ADJs, who are part of higher judicial service, are filled up through promotions of lower judicial officers. They are also filled up through direct recruitment of lawyers who have at least seven years of experience at the Bar.

Now the issue is whether a lower judicial officer can also apply for the posts of ADJs under direct recruitment quota meant for lawyers and his experience of seven years as a judicial officer or a lawyer or both can be counted or not.

On August 12, a three-judge Bench headed by the CJI had referred to a five-judge Constitution bench the question if a judicial officer, who has already completed seven years in the Bar prior to joining the bench, was entitled to become an ADJ for the vacancy under Bar quota.

The top court also referred the question whether the eligibility for appointment as a district judge was to be considered only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both.

“We refer the aforesaid issues for consideration of a constitution bench of five Judges of this court. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders,” the Bench said.

The top court had passed the order while hearing an appeal filed against a Kerala High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of a district judge on the grounds that he was not a practising advocate at the time of appointment and was in judicial service.

The petitioner was a practising lawyer with seven years of experience in the bar when he submitted his application for the post of the district judge.