Judicial officers can’t be district judges by direct recruitment: SC

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, February 19

Members of subordinate judiciary services were not eligible to be appointed as district judges by way of direct recruitment, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

“We find that rules debarring judicial officers from staking their claim as against the posts reserved for direct recruitment from bar are not ultra vires as rules are subservient to the provisions of the constitution,” a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said.

The Bench—which also included Justice Vineet Sharan and Justice S Ravindra Bhat—said the members in the judicial service of a state can be appointed as district judges only by way of   promotion or limited competitive examination.

“Under Article 232(2), an Advocate or a pleader with 7 years of practice can be appointed as district judge by way of direct recruitment in case he is not already in the judicial service of the Union or a state,” said the Bench.

“For the purpose of Article 233(2), an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the cut­off date and at the time of appointment as district judge. Members of judicial service having 7 years’ experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of 7 years as lawyer and member of judiciary are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge,” it said.

The top court upheld the rules framed by the Delhi High Court prohibiting judicial service officers from staking claim to the post of district judge against the posts reserved for advocates by way of direct recruitment, saying the rules can’t be said to be ultra vires as these were in conformity with Articles 14, 16 and 233 of the Constitution.

The Bench overruled the top court’s decision in Vijay Kumar Mishra’s case, saying the judgment providing eligibility of judicial officer to compete as against the post of district judge by way of   direct recruitment can’t be said to be laying down the law correctly.

The issue involved interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution regarding the eligibility of judicial service officers for appointment as district judge as against the quota reserved for the Bar by way of direct recruitment.

 There were three categories of petitioners. First, those judicial officers who claimed that in case before joining judicial service a candidate has completed 7 years of practice as an advocate, he/she shall be eligible to stake claim as against the direct recruitment quota from the Bar notwithstanding that on the date of application/appointment, he or she is in judicial service of the Union or State.

Second category was that of the persons having completed only 7 years of service as judicial service. They contend that experience as a judge be treated at par with the Bar service, and they should be permitted to stake their claim.

The third category was hybrid, consisting of candidates who have completed 7 years’ by combining the experience serving as a judicial officer and as advocate. All three had claimed to be eligible to stake their claim against the above quota.

However, the top court said, “We are of the opinion that for direct recruitment as district judge as against the quota fixed for the advocates/pleaders, incumbent has to be practicing advocate and must be in practice as on the cut­off date and at the time of appointment he must not be in judicial service or other services of the union or state.”

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.