Karnataka High Court Stays Order Allowing Judicial Staff To Take Civil Judge Exam Without Following 3-Year Practice Rule

The Karnataka High Court has recently stayed an April 29 interim order of a single judge bench, permitting in-service judicial staff to attend the prelims, mains and viva voce for the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) even without the mandatory 3-year practice rule enunciated by the Supreme Court. 

The Division Bench of Justices Sachin Shankar Magadum and Rajesh Rai K granted the interim stay on May 7. Vacation bench of Justices H P Sandesh and P Sree Sudha on May 12, refused to vacate the stay already granted.

“…Prima facie, this Court finds that the amendment brought to Rule 4 appears to be a conscious legislative response to the mandate issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasizing the necessity of prior Bar experience for entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment. The amended Rule now consciously withdraws the earlier recruitment channel available to in-service judicial staff/court staff and prescribes minimum three years' continuous practice as an Advocate as an essential qualification”, the Division Bench of Justices Magadum and Rai had noted on May 7.

The Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2025, issued on March 12, 2026, modifies Rule 4 by withdrawing the earlier enabling provision that permitted in-service candidates (judicial staff/court staff) to participate in direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge. Instead, the amended rules now fix a minimum of three years' continuous bar practise as a prerequisite, with a limited exception for law clerks or research assistants to participate in the exams.

“…Prima facie, the amended framework does not carve out any exception in favour of in-service staff of the High Court or District Judiciary and, on the contrary, specifically recognises only Law Clerks/Research Assistants as a distinct category. Therefore, the continuance of the interim order permitting participation of candidates who admittedly do not satisfy the amended eligibility criteria would have a direct bearing on the ongoing recruitment process governed by the amended Rules”, the high court court order dated May 7 reads further.

Staying the single judge bench order dated 29.04.2026, the Division bench of Magadum and Rai added that when the vires of the amendment itself is under challenge, and the amendment is stated to have been brought in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the interim arrangement made by the single judge bench wouldn't prima facie sustain itself.

Context

In WP 14378/2026(first instance of litigation before the High Court), the vires of the amended service recruitment rules were challenged by the petitioners who are judicial staff. The preliminary examination, main examination, and viva-voce for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) were intended to be conducted in pursuance of Notification No.HCRB/CJR-9/2026 dated April 16, 2026. On April 29, the single-judge bench of Justice S.R Krishna Kumar had permitted the in-service staff to take part in the exam as an interim arrangement.

Aggrieved by the same, the Registrar General of the High Court preferred an appeal contending that no judicially created exception in favour of in-service staff could invalidate the operation of the amended Service Recruitment Rules.

Before the vacation bench, the appellant had argued that the amended rules emanated from the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 as well as in Civil Appeal No.561 of 2013.

Pertinently, the hearing in a review petition on the 3-year mandatory practise for entering judicial services is currently underway at the apex court. During the review petition hearing, the Supreme Court on March 13 directed all High Courts to extend the last date of application for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Posts until April 30, 2026.

Further Developments

“…an interim order enabling candidates, who presently lack the prescribed eligibility under the statutory Rules, to participate in the recruitment process would require deeper examination… Balance of convenience also lies in favour of maintaining the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the amended statutory Rules, pending consideration of the larger issue concerning validity of the amendment”, the court had concluded in its May 7 order by staying the permission granted to the staff by the single judge bench to participate in the exam.

While the last date for filing an application to take part in the Civil Judge Exam was May 15, the original writ petitioners approached the vacation bench of Justices H P Sandesh & P Sree Sudha on May 12 to vacate the stay granted by the previous vacation bench on May 7.

Refusing to restore the single judge bench order dated April 29, the High Court, on May 12, noted that the Supreme Court is already seized of the issue regarding the prescription of three years of practice as a precondition for recruitment as Judicial Officers at the entry level.

“…Liberty is given to the respondents to approach the Apex Court to seek the clarity in the issue involved between the parties and also the amendment that was brought into effect consequent upon the directions of the Apex Court. Unless the same is clarified by the Apex Court, it is not appropriate for this Court to vacate or modify the order dated 07.05.2026”, the Division bench of Justices Sandesh & Sree Sudha concluded.

The High Court accordingly disposed of the interim application for vacation of the interim stay preferred by the original writ petitioners/ in-service staff.

Case Title: The Registrar General of High Court v. Yogesha B & Ors,

Case No: WA 1397/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order