Judicial Officers Cannot Be Appointed As District Judges Through Direct Recruitment Under Reserved Quota: SC
Case Name:
Dheeraj Mor … Appellant(S)
Versus
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi … Respondent(S)
Brief Facts:
This was the case that arose by the reference made on Jan 2018 on the question of law under article 233 of the Constitution of India, whether the official serving Judicial services are eligible after rendering 7 years of service can be directly appointed to the post of District Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. The question was framed before the two-Judge Bench.
The Bench explained that Article 233 contains two different paths; the first one is the appointment of District Judges by the way of promotion and other by the way of direct recruitment that is by way of exams as mentioned respectively under Article 233(1) and Article 233(2).
Issues Raised:
- Whether the candidate can be considered as an eligible candidate after he has completed the seven years of practice as an advocate, and at the time pf appointment was under the service of Union or State?
- Whether the members of Judicial Service who have completed seven years of their service as a Judicial officer or Judicial officer plus advocate, can be considered as an eligible candidate?
Key Features:
- The case came up before the 3 judge bench of Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S Ravindra Bhat.
- In the judgment, Justice Arun Mishra observed that the serving Judicial Officer voluntarily made the choice that is it was upon him to either join the subordinate services or to continue to be an advocate to the Higher Judicial Services. That is according to him when someone voluntarily joins a particular stream of Judicial service, he cannot sail in two boats by waiving a 25% quota exclusively earmarked for Advocates.
- The further said that even if one of those source or sources is permitted to compete in the quota embarked for the other without the converse situation the result would rank as discrimination.
- Justice Ravindra Bhat observed that the practicing advocates reflect independence and are likely to offer a useful attribute, i.e. ability to think differently and have novel approaches to the interpretation of the laws and the Constitution, so essential for robustness of the judiciary, as well as society as a whole”.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict:
The bench answered the questions as:
- The members in the judicial service of the State can be appointed as District Judges by way of promotion or limited competitive examination.
- The Governor of a State is the authority for appointment, promotion, posting, and transfer, the eligibility is governed by the Rules framed under Articles 234 and 235.
- 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.
- 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 a combined experience of 7 years as lawyer and members of the judiciary are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge.
- The rules framed by the 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, cannot be said to be ultra vires and are in conformity with Articles 14, 16 and 233 of the Constitution of India.
And therefore the decision earlies given in Vijay Kumar Mishra for the appointment of officers as District Judges through direct recruitment was overruled by this decision.[1]
Submitted By
Sakshi Raje
Student reporter, INBA
[1]https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/practising-advocates-experience-gained-at-bar-injects-judicial-branch-with-fresh-perspectives-sc-152952