The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant a one-time relaxation of the mandatory practice requirement for in-service court employees seeking entry into the judicial service, orally observing that judicial posts cannot be treated as a promotional avenue for other cadres.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, dismissed applications filed by court staff who had approached the Court seeking modification of the Bhumika Trust judgment, which waived the practice condition for graduates till March 31, 2027. The applicants, 21 officers from Karnataka sought relaxation for Court staff as well.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the applicants, submitted that different States were applying the Court's earlier judgment in the Bhumika Trust case inconsistently with respect to in-service candidates.
He pointed out that Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Maharashtra continued to permit recruitment by transfer for in-service persons, while Karnataka insisted that such candidates must compete in the open category.
CJI Surya Kant responded that the creation of a separate channel was a matter for the States under Article 309 or through legislation, but the Court would not issue a direction to introduce another mode of recruitment.
“That is for the State. They can exercise their power under Article 309, or perhaps through legislation. But we would like to keep ourselves away from issuing a direction that they should introduce another channel of recruitment,” the Chief Justice said.
Sondhi argued that persons in service in Karnataka were being hit by the rules after the High Court, in exercise of its administrative powers, relied on the Supreme Court's judgment. “I am willing to compete. In Karnataka, until 2026, in-service candidates were permitted,” he submitted.
Sondhi pressed that the rule must be applied consistently across the country, pointing out that at least three States continued to permit in-service candidates. The Chief Justice replied that if any challenge was raised against those State rules, the Court would examine it, but it would not relax the standards.
“You cannot make judicial service a promotional post for other cadres,” CJI Surya Kant said firmly.
When Sondhi highlighted the rich experience of court officers and judgment writers, and recalled that former Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia had started as a clerk, the Chief Justice cautioned against treating such exceptions as the foundation for a uniform rule.
“We have no doubt about them. We know that without their assistance, the administration of justice will become lame… That is not a very wise foundation for framing a uniform rule. Exceptions are always there. Among you also, there may be very good exceptions. But they will have to have the confidence to leave this zone, get rid of this sense of security, come into the open field, practise for one year now and take a chance,” CJI Surya Kant said.
Justice Mohana added that while court clerks and bench clerks perform work that lawyers cannot do, they cannot be treated as a channel for promotion into the judicial service.
Sondhi then sought a one-time relaxation, arguing that recruitment processes in several States were still pending and that the sudden change in status quo had affected many candidates. He referred to paragraph 50 of the Bhumika Trust judgment, which had recognised transitional hardship in the context of advocates.
CJI Surya Kant declined the request: “As of now, we would not like to relax this condition. No reason to modify our judgment. Dismissed.”
When Sondhi finally requested a clarification that States retain the liberty to take their own policy decisions, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the Court was averse to passing a general order injuncting the States.
The applicants have stated that in-service candidates were eligible to apply for the post of Civil Judge in Karnataka for decades.
The Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, were amended in 2011 to permit certain categories of in-service candidates to apply. The eligibility was subsequently expanded in 2015 to cover all in-service candidates.
However, on March 12, 2026, the State amended the recruitment rules to exclude in-service candidates from eligibility for the post of Civil Judge.
According to the application, the sole reason recorded for the exclusion was that the Supreme Court's May 20, 2025 judgment in All India Judges Association had made 3 year practice mandatory to join judicial service.
The applicants submitted that serving employees possess substantial experience of working within the legal system and are better placed in terms of professional exposure than law graduates who have completed only one year of practice.
They have pointed out that the Supreme Court's August 21, 2026 judgment permitted law clerks to be eligible for the Civil Judge post under the transitional arrangement, while the applicants themselves have been working in service for periods ranging from five to fifteen years.
They have further contended that several applicants obtained law degrees while in service with the specific objective of appearing for the Civil Judge examination.
The application states that the candidates cannot resign from their existing posts and commence legal practice because they have families to support and would face financial hardship.
The applicants have argued that excluding them without the issue having been specifically considered by the Supreme Court would violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
They have also submitted that in-service candidates would have to clear the same written examination and viva voce as other candidates, and are not seeking any reservation or preferential treatment.
The application was filed through AoR Agam Sharma.