Judicial Officer Who Completed 7 Year Practice At Bar Eligible For District Judge Direct Appointment : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court [Day 1]

The Supreme Court today began its Constitution Bench hearing on the issue of whether a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against a Bar vacancy.The 5-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran considered the matter.The bench has been constituted after the 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed an order on August 12, referring the matter to a larger benchAt the outset, Sr. Advocate Jayant Bhushan appeared for petitioners who had cleared the UP civil judge exams but, due to the High Court's rules, could not sit for the district judge exams. Bhushan stated the 4 issues of law that the present would be considering : (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?(ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both?(iii) Whether there is an eligibility prescribed for the persons already in the judicial services of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as the district judge(iv) A person who has been a judge for 7 years or has been an advocate and a civil judge for a combined period of 7 years or more could be appointed as a district judge?Article 233 & The Contradiction By Dheeraj Mor Case: Bhushan Explains Referring to Article 233(2), Bhushan submitted that the decision in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi would require reconsideration. In Dheeraj Mor(3-judge bench), the Court held that civil judges are not eligible to seek direct recruitment to the post of District Judges in the bar quota.The Court further observed, "Article 233(2) nowhere provides eligibility of in-service candidates for consideration as a District Judge concerning a post requiring 7 years' practice as an advocate or a pleader. Requirement of 7 years' experience for advocate or pleader is qualified with a rider that he should not be in the service of the Union or the State"Notably, Article 233 reads : (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State,(2)A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.Bhushan stressed that in Dheeraj Mor, the court wrongly held that the phrase 'A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge' means that those in service as civil judge would be excluded from being appointed as a district judge. Justice Sundresh weighed in to add that it was crucial to keep in mind that within a constitutional provision, there could be exclusions and inclusions at the same time. He observed that the 7-year qualification may have been specifically mentioned to make it doubly sure of the eligibility for advocates, but the same may not apply to other candidates who too could be considered to the district judge appointments. "If someone wants to make it doubly clear that the advocate should have certain years while differentiating between the others, this 7-year qualification is not forcing on them; therefore, you can apply that this qualification of 7 years is only meant for lawyers and maybe it may not be meant for others, that is one way of arguing it." Bhushan also relied on the Constituent Assembly Debates on Article 233(2) and submitted that the intent of the provision was to lay down the qualifications of who could be appointed as a district judge. He said that as per the reading of the provision, the appointment is done in two ways: (1) direct recruitment; (2) promotion from the lower judiciaryHe stressed that if the other side is contending that the 7-year rule means only those advocates in 7 years of practice, excluding those who are now serving as civil judges, then how would the civil judges get promoted? UP Judicial Rules Contrary To The Intention Of Article 233: Bhushan Submits During the hearing, Bhushan referred to Rule 5 of the UP Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975. Rule 5(c) provides that recruitment for the service of a district judge should be "By direct recruitment from amongst the Advocates who have been, for not less than seven years, practicing as an Advocate, as on the last date fixed for the submission of application forms." Clause (a) specifies recruitment by promotion on the basis of the Principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a...

Judicial Officer Who Completed 7 Year Practice At Bar Eligible For District Judge Direct Appointment : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court [Day 1]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Judicial Officer Who Completed 7 Year Practice At Bar Eligible For District Judge Direct Appointment : Petitioners Argue In Supreme Court [Day 1]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers