Chhattisgarh HC Declines Plea By Public Prosecutors, APPs Challenging Denial Of Judiciary Exam Admit Card Over Non-Enrolment With Bar
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Tuesday (September 16) dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by scores of registered candidates of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2024, including Public prosecutors and Assistant public prosecutors, who were not enrolled as 'Advocates' with a Bar Council on the date of advertisement of the examination, challenging the denial of admit cards notwithstanding the fact that they were earlier allowed to apply for the examination.
In the reasoned order, which was made available on the website on Wednesday (September 17) evening, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru expressed apparent reluctance to entertain the pleas and criticised the ousted candidates for “attempting to secure backdoor entry.” It was further observed –
“A bald plea of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been taken by the petitioners which is without any foundation. A legislative provision prescribing qualifications for public employment cannot be struck down merely because a group of aspirants feels aggrieved. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any lack of legislative competence, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional guarantees. What is urged is nothing more than a disagreement with policy, which is impermissible grounds for judicial interference.”
Background
Some of the petitioners, who were already holding government posts as Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that the advertisement unreasonably differentiated between lawyers having private practice and public prosecutors. They submitted that such discrimination is derogatory to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
It was further submitted that the amendment brought in by notification dated 05.07.2024 and the advertisement dated 23.12.2024 are contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors. (2013) wherein it was held that Public Prosecutors and Law Officers, regularly appearing before Courts and discharging duties akin to Advocates, must be treated as Advocates within the meaning of the Advocates Act for the purposes of eligibility in judicial service.
The petitioners also pointed out that their service as Public Prosecutors/Law Officers are counted towards eligibility for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, which is done directly from Bar. When they are held eligible for appointment in the cadre of District Judge, it was surprising how they were deemed ineligible for entry level post, i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), merely on the technical ground of non-enrolment.
They further argued that pursuant to the order dated 22.01.2025 of the High Court, when the corrigendum was brought in allowing non-enrolled candidates to apply for the recruitment, they cannot be thrown out of the process arbitrarily at this juncture, when the preliminary examination is just a few days away, i.e. 21.09.2025.
On the other hand, Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur strenuously defended the impugned action of the CGPSC by contending that the same is in strict consonance with the AIJA judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, when the petitioners have failed to demonstrate reason to declare the action as ultra vires, he argued, making a bald statement that it violates their constitutional rights would not come to their aid.
Court's Findings
The Court placed explicit reliance on para 90 of the AIJA judgment whereby the Apex Court had importantly observed –
“Needless to state that all such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.”
Undisputedly, the Bench noted, the advertisement for recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was issued on 23.12.2024 and the rule/eligibility criteria prevailing at that point of time was that the candidate should possess degree in law from any recognized University and should also be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The petitioners had contended that on 19.01.2024, when the total number of vacancies were notified, there was no such rule mandating Bar enrolment as a pre-condition in order to apply for the Judicial Service. It was only on 05.07.2024 that such amendment was introduced. Therefore, as per the AIJA judgment, the rule prevailing on 19.01.2024, i.e. no mandatory requirement of enrolment, must prevail. However, the Court rejected such submission observing –
“The notification dated 19.01.2024 was merely a notification to the effect notifying the total number of vacancies and it was not the notification/advertisement for recruitment on the post as a notification for recruitment not only specifies the number of vacancies, it also specifies eligibility criteria, pay scales, reservation conditions, mode of examination, manner in which the forms have to be filled up, which all was not available in the notification dated 19.01.2024. The recruitment notification/advertisement was issued only on 23.12.2024 by which time the notification dated 05.07.2024 was already in existence.”
Consequently, the Court was of the view that in the light of the Apex Court judgment in AIJA case, the corrigendum brought in by the State Government vide notification dated 21.02.2025, whereby the requirement of being enrolled as an Advocate was done away with, cannot withstand. Resultantly, the candidates who were not enrolled with the Bar Council on 23.12.2024 are now excluded from the recruitment process.
While dismissing the petitions, the Court harshly remarked –
“These petitions, therefore, amount to an abuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. They proceed on misplaced assumptions, misinterpretation of precedent, and an attempt to secure a backdoor entry into judicial service by inviting this Court to rewrite the statutory rules—something which is impermissible in law.”
Case Title: Himalaya Ravi & Anr. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case No: WPS Nos. 11089, 11093 & 11096 of 2025
Date of Judgment: September 16, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal along with Mr. Mehul Kumar, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State; Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for the CGPSC; Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the High Court