Judicial Officers' Experience Greater Than That Of Practising Advocates: Supreme Court In District Judge Recruitment Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that in-service judicial officers can apply for direct recruitment as District Judges if they have a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and/or in service. The Court also observed that the experience gained by a judicial officer is greater than that of a practising advocate.

The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for the 5-judge Constitution Bench observed, "the experience the judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than the one, a person gains while working as an advocate."

"Apart from that, before commencing their work as judicial officers, the judges are also required to undergo rigorous training of at least one year," the judgment added.

The Court observed that there was "no reason to deny an opportunity to such young talented judicial officers to compete with the advocates/pleaders having seven years' practice in the matter of direct recruitment to the post of district judge."

The Court observed that it would be an anomaly if Assistant Public Prosecutors and Govt Pleaders can apply for direct recruitment as District Judges while judicial officers are barred.

"When Government pleaders and Assistant Public Prosecutor who were still practicing in courts were held to be competent to apply for direct recruitment to the post of district judge, can the judicial officers before whom they practice," the Court wondered.

Merit and merit alone matters

The Court observed that barring an otherwise eligible person from direct recruitment only because he is in judicial service is irrational.

"Barring a person, who is otherwise eligible but at the time of advertisement, is in judicial service of the Union or of the State and is prevented from competing with the candidates who are advocates having practice of seven years, for appointment(s) in the stream of direct recruitment would result in denial of an equal treatment. When the appointments are made solely on the basis of merit, then the claim of meritorious judicial officers cannot be overlooked. It is only merit and merit alone that shall matter," the Court held.

The judgment emphasised that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would require that an equal treatment be given to all eligible candidates.

A “quota” for advocates, having practice of seven years, in the matter of direct recruitment for the post of district judges would violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court said, overruling the view taken in Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (1985) 1 SCC 225.

The Constitution Bench also overruled the 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which held that only practising advocates can seek direct appointment as District Judges.

Interestingly, in Dheeraj Mor, the Supreme Court had observed that the wide experience gained by an advocate will bring a fresh perspective to judicial service. It was held there that "experience and knowledge gained by a successful lawyer at the Bar can never be considered to be less important from any point of view vis­à­vis the experience gained by a judicial officer". Dheeraj Mor further observed that "practising advocates reflect independence and are likely offer a useful attribute, i.e. ability to think differently and have novel approaches to interpretation of the laws and the Constitution, so essential for robustness of the judiciary, as well as society as a whole".

The Constitution Bench has disagreed with the views expressed by the 3-judge bench in Dheeraj Mor.

The Court also noted that the Shetty Commission's Report had noted that most High Courts were in favour of giving in-service candidates an opportunity to seek direct recruitment as District Judges.

"The reasoning given in support of the said recommendation by the Commission was to promote efficiency, improve discipline in judicial service and make the officers work more efficiently, diligently and sincerely. It has been observed that if meritorious young blood should be introduced in the mixed cadre, there is no reason as to why merited serving judges should be excluded from consideration for direct recruitment," the Court noted about the Shetty Commission recommendations.

Fully agreeing with the Shetty Commission, the Court said that in order to promote efficiency in the cadre of district judges, the young talented meritorious judicial officers should not be denied an opportunity.

Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran were the other members of the bench.

Detailed story regarding the conclusions in the judgment and the background of the case can be read here.

 Case: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA [Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020]