'Unwarranted': Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Candidates Without State Bar Enrolment To Sit For Civil Judge Exam

As an interim respite, the Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed candidates who are not enrolled with any State Bar Council as an 'Advocate' to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Singh and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal prima facie found the condition of Bar enrolment for appearing in the judicial service examination to be 'unwarranted' and thus, observed –“A candidate who is a Law Graduate, whether or not is enrolled as an Advocate, would hardly make any difference as he/she will also have to go through the same scrutiny which the other candidate, who is enrolled as an Advocate, has to go.”Case BackgroundThe petitioner Vinita Yadav, a government servant filed this writ petition challenging a Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2024 issued by the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh by which Rule 7(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 has been substituted and accordingly, it now requires a candidate to not only possess a degree in Law from any recognized University and but also to have enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act.The petitioner was, hence, also aggrieved by the official notification for holding of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2024, which was issued on 23.12.2024 by the State Public Service Commission in conformity with the aforesaid substituted rule.ContentionsIt was the contention of the petitioner that she being a Law graduate, was desirous of appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment examination. However, as currently she is a government servant, she is disqualified from appearing in the examination due to the operation of substituted Rule 7(1)(c).Being a full-time government employee, she is barred from getting enrolled as an Advocate under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules framed under the Advocates Act and without having the Bar enrolment, she is not allowed to sit for the recruitment examination.She further submitted that she was eligible under the old rules but she has become ineligible due to the substituted rule. It was also submitted that several other States like Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Delhi do not have any such mandatory condition.Therefore, it was her vehement argument that the condition imposed in the recruitment process has curtailed her right to appear in the examination which she is otherwise entitled to. There is no rationale in imposing such condition in the Rules of 2006 or in the advertisement. Court's ObservationsThe Court, at the outset, observed that the contentions of the petitioner have some substance. It held that the scope of candidates for participation should not be narrowed down by imposing 'unwarranted conditions', rather more candidates should be allowed to participate so that better qualified candidates may be selected.“Hence, prima facie, we are of the view that for the present, the petitioner shall be permitted to fill up her online form and in case she fulfils all the other criteria, she may be permitted to participate in the recruitment process,” it observed.Since the last date for submission of online forms was 24.01.2025, the Bench directed the State Public Service Commission to extend the last date of submission of online form, preferably by one month. Further, purely as an interim measure, the Commission was ordered to permit the candidates to fill their online forms even if they are not enrolled as an Advocate. The said changes were directed to be notified to the aspirants by way of a corrigendum to be published in widely circulated newspapers and other forms of media. “It is also made clear that this order would operate in rem and not in personam and even those candidates who have not approached this High Court seeking for the aforesaid relief, shall be permitted to avail the benefit of the present order,” it clarified.However, the Court made it clear that the participation of the candidates in the recruitment process would be subject to the final outcome of the case. It nevertheless requested the High Court (on the administrative side) to revisit the Amendment brought in by the aforesaid Gazette notification.Pertinent to mention, pursuant to such order of the High Court, the State Public Service Commission has brought in corrigendum on 23.01.2025 to the earlier recruitment notification dated 23.12.2024, whereby non-enrolled candidates are now allowed to submit their online forms till 23.02.2025.Case Title: Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State Of ChhattisgarhCase No: WPS No. 608 of 2025Date of Order: January 22, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ishita Niyogi, AdvocateCounsel for the Respondents: Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate for Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission; Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for High...

'Unwarranted': Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Candidates Without State Bar Enrolment To Sit For Civil Judge Exam

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags