Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court

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 answered the questions as follows :

(i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;

(ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;

(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the  Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years' combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;

(iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution;

(v) In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application.

(vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh till Dheeraj Mor (supra), which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law.

The Court directed the High Courts and State Governments to amend the rules in terms of the judgment within a period of three months from today.

There were two judgments- by CJI Gavai and Justice Sundresh- both concurring.

The lead judgment written by CJI Gavai observed :

"..we are of the considered view that for bringing the advocates and the in-service candidates at the same level, it will be appropriate that the rules provide that an in-service candidate should be eligible for recruitment to the post of district judge directly only if he has a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer.

Similarly, if an advocate is participating in the selection process and he was a member of judicial service in the past, then his experience as a judicial officer also cannot be ignored. His experience as an advocate prior to joining judicial service, his experience as a judicial officer and his experience as an advocate after leaving the judicial service will all have to be taken together. Such a candidate will be eligible only if he has a combined experience as an advocate and as a judicial officer for seven years."

Other key takeaways from the judgemnt

1. The 7-year practice must be continuous. The Court rejected the argument that persons with a break in practice must be considered if they have already completed 7 years of practice.  "We say so because say if a person has practised for five years and thereafter, he takes a break of ten years and thereafter practises for two years, there will be a disconnect with the legal profession. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that only such persons working either as an advocate/pleader including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or as a judicial officer who, on the date of application, have a continuous experience of either an advocate/pleader or a judicial officer or a combination thereof shall only be eligible to be considered for appointment as district judges through the stream of direct recruitment," the Court said.

2. No quota for advocates under Article 233(2).  The Court rejected the plea for a quota for practising advocates in direct recruitment.

3. To promote efficiency in the cadre of district judges, the young talented meritorious judicial officers should not be denied an opportunity. 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.

4. 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.

5. The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service should be to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job.

6. The Court held that Article 233 has to be read as a whole and both the sub-articles cannot be read independently. The Court also held that a purposive interpretation of Article 233 should be adopted, instead of a literal or pedantic view. The view which enhances the efficiency of administration and attracts meritorious candidates ought to be preferred.

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 bench

The four main issues considered by the bench are :

(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 any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge?

(iv). Whether a person who has been Civil Judge for a period of seven years or has been an Advocate and Civil Judge for a combined period of seven years or more than seven years would be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India?

In the 3 days long hearing, the petitioners mainly contended that the decision in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi required 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.

Here the petitioners argued that it was incorrect to hold 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.

The petitioners also emphasised that the 7-year practice rule for advocates under Art. 233(2) cannot be interpreted to mean 7 continuous years of practice as per Dheeraj Mor case.

The petitioners were represented by Sr Advocates Jayant Bhushan, Arvind Datar, PS Patwalia, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, V Giri, Vibha Makhija, Jaideep Gupta, Seshadiri Naidu, Manish Singhvi, DS Naidu, George Poonthottam and Maneka Guruswamy etc.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that Article 233(2) excluded candidates in service from the opportunity of direct recruitment as it only specifies the qualification for practising advocates.

It was stressed that the view that Article 233(2) was limited to advocates held the ground for over 60 years and is governed by the principle of stare decisis. It was further submitted that the 7-year practice rule has to read to mean 7 years of continuous practice by the advocates.

The Respondents were represented by Sr Advocates CU Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, Vijay Hansaria, Rajiv Shakder, Ravindra Srivastava and others

What Led To The Reference?

The Court passed the reference order in an appeal filed against a Kerala High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of a District Judge on the ground that, at the time of issuing the order of appointment, he was not a practising Advocate and was in judicial service, functioning as a Munsiff.

In 2021, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's judgment.

The appellant Rejanish KV was a practising lawyer having 7 years' experience in the Bar when he submitted his application for the post of District Judge. He was also an applicant for selection to the post of Munsiff/Magistrate and while the selection process of District Judge was underway, he was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate on 28/12/2017. After he got appointment order to the post of District Judge, he was relieved from the Subordinate Judiciary on 21/8/2019 and he took charge as District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 24/8/2019. Another candidate [K. Deepa] filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging his appointment contending that he was not eligible to be appointed as District Judge since at the relevant time when he was appointed as a District Judge, he was not a practising Advocate and was in judicial service, functioning as a Munsiff.

This writ petition was allowed by the Single Bench relying on a Supreme Court judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi in which it was held that an advocate who applies for the post of District Judge by way of direct recruitment should continue to be a practising Advocate until the date of appointment.

Though it upheld the Single Bench judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that several appointments of District Judges may have been made across the country based on the Rules applicable in the respective States which may, as in the case of the Kerala Rules be contrary to the declaration of law in Dheeraj Mor. It, therefore, granted certificate to file appeal before the Supreme Court observing that matter involves substantial question of law of general importance.

Other stories about the judgment can be found here.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989