Karnataka HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of District Judge Over Alleged Lack Of 7 Years Continuous Practice As Advocate

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Registrar General of the High Court on a public interest litigation filed questioning the appointment of a district judge, as she allegedly does not have 7 years of continuous practice as an advocate as on the last date fixed for the receipt of the application.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha issued notice on the petition filed by Advocate Chetana Parutabadi. The court said, “We want to see if this issue has been considered.” It has now posted the matter for hearing on January 29, 2026.

Though the plea sought interim relief seeking to stay the operation of the appointment order and in the alternative, direct the Registry not to provide any judicial duties to the 3rd respondent (Geeta Shinde), till the final disposal of the present writ petition. The counsel did not press for it.

The plea contends that the 3rd respondent is not eligible for appointment as a District Judge, as she does not have 7 years of continuous practice as an advocate as on the last date fixed for the receipt of the application. It is claimed that she has taken away the opportunity of other eligible candidates belonging to the scheduled caste who otherwise would be appointed to the post of District Judge in the event the 3rd Respondent had disclosed the true facts.

The plea claims that Shinde was working as an Assistant Professor of Law from 01.08.2019 at Law Wings Educational Trust, Bangalore Law College. Her appointment was a full-time appointment initially for a period of one year, which came to be extended further till 2022, at a fixed pay scale. The 3rd respondent is having all the benefits of a full-time employee, including paid leaves and required to perform the administrative duties such as attending national festivals, college functions and all programs organised by the College and University and also mandatorily needed to participate in the examination duty as well as valuation duty.

It is submitted that in spite of taking full-time employment as an Assistant Professor of Law, she had violated the Rules of the Bar Council of India and continued to maintain her name in the roll of Bar Council of India. However, such duration cannot be counted as practice for the purpose of counting continued practice under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. As Shinde had taken a break for practice as an advocate from the year 2019 to 2022.

The plea seeks to quash orders dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent and dated 21.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently issue an appropriate writ or direction to the 1st Respondent to renotify the vacancy to post of the District Judges following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196.

Case Title: Chetana Parutabadi AND HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & Others

Case No: WP 33613/2025

Appearance: Advocate Nithin Gowda J R for Petitioner.