Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Requirement Of 3 Years Law Practice Or 70% Marks In LL.B For MP Civil Judge Post
The Supreme Court (today, April 26) declined to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order upholding the rule that stipulated eligibility of at least three years of practice or 70 percent marks in law graduation for entry-level judicial service candidates in the State. After hearing the submissions, the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra opined that there...
The Supreme Court (today, April 26) declined to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order upholding the rule that stipulated eligibility of at least three years of practice or 70 percent marks in law graduation for entry-level judicial service candidates in the State.
After hearing the submissions, the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra opined that there was no reason to interfere with the High Court's view and, thus, dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the impugned order.
In the year 2023, an amendment in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 was made. Through this amendment, an additional eligibility qualification for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) was introduced. In terms of the amendment, all those who had practised continuously as an advocate for not less than three years on the last date fixed for submission of applications were eligible to apply. Further, in the alternative, an outstanding Law Graduate with a brilliant academic career, having passed all exams on the first attempt by securing at least 70% marks in the aggregate, was eligible to apply.
Before the High Court, the present petitioner sought to set this amendment aside and argued that it was ultra vires to several articles of the Constitution, including Article 14 (Right to equality).
However, the High Court was of the view that the object of the amendment was a “qualitative dispensation of justice” and “Excellence should always have precedence over mediocrity.” Stating thus, the Court also observed that the amendment does not deny opportunity, and the options for the candidates are two-fold. The Court went on to record:
“All this goes to enhance the quality of the judgments which, in turn, affects the litigants at large. The object of the High Court to achieve these results, in our considered view, does not call for any interference whatsoever. It cannot be just a dream of a candidate to become a judge. One has to possess the highest of standards to join the judiciary.”
The High Court had also weighed the interest of the litigants in such cases. The High Court had marked that the interest of the litigants is far more important than the interest of the individual petitioner. The High Court also observed that accepting the arguments of the petitioners would only maintain the existing subpar standards that have persisted for decades. For decades a minimum qualification was sufficient. There has been no attempt to ensure the enhancement of quality. It is for the first time that the High Court has attempted to do so., the High Court added.
In light of these observations, the Court declined to declare the impugned amendment as either unconstitutional or ultra vires the Constitution.
Case Title: GARIMA KHARE vs. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH., Diary No.- 18316 - 2024