Chhattisgarh High Court Declines To Interfere With Ouster Of Judiciary Candidates Not Enrolled With Bar On Date Of Recruitment Advertisement

In an important development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to interfere with the decision of the State Public Service Commission (CGPSC) not to issue admit cards for the Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service to the candidates who were not enrolled with the Bar Council at the time of issuance of advertisement for recruitment, i.e. 23.12.2024.

Today, the matter was mentioned by the aggrieved candidates before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru.

The vehement contention of the petitioners was that, as per the Supreme Court ruling in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601 (the 'AIJA judgment'), the Civil Judge examinations, for which the recruitment processes were already underway at the time of delivery of the Apex Court judgment, must continue as per the rules applicable on the date of advertisement/notification. In other words, the mandatory requirement of three-year practice shall not be applicable to the candidates who are party to the recruitment process which was initiated before the delivery of the AIJA judgment.

Notably, the Chhattisgarh Government by a Gazette Notification dated 05.07.2024 issued by the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs substituted Rule 7(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 and accordingly, it required a candidate to not only possess a degree of Law from any recognized University, but also to have enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 in order to apply for the Judicial Service.

Being aggrieved by the official notification for holding of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2024, which was issued on 23.12.2024 by the State Public Service Commission in conformity with the aforesaid substituted rule, a petition was filed impugning the same. Pursuant to a brief hearing, the High Court had entertained the petition by finding the mandatory Bar enrolment requirement to be bad in law.

In its order dated 22.01.2025, the Court had held that the scope of candidates for participation should not be narrowed down by imposing 'unwarranted conditions', rather more candidates should be allowed to participate so that better qualified candidates may be selected.

Further, purely as an interim measure, the Commission was then ordered to permit the candidates to fill their online forms even if they are not enrolled as an Advocate. The said changes were directed to be notified to the aspirants by way of a corrigendum to be published in widely circulated newspapers and other forms of media.

“It is also made clear that this order would operate in rem and not in personam and even those candidates who have not approached this High Court seeking for the aforesaid relief, shall be permitted to avail the benefit of the present order,” it had clarified.

Pursuant to such order of the High Court, the State Public Service Commission had brought in corrigendum on 23.01.2025 to the earlier recruitment notification dated 23.12.2024, whereby non-enrolled candidates were allowed to submit their online forms till 23.02.2025.

The Preliminary examination of the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service-2024 was originally scheduled on May 18, 2025. However, the same was put on hold by the High Court by its order dated April 07, 2025, in order to wait for the outcome of the AIJA case which was then pending before the Apex Court.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in AIJA case on May 20, 2025 which mandated minimum three-years practice as an Advocate as an eligibility condition for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through State Judicial Services. In para 90 of the judgment, the 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.”

In consonance with such clarification, the CGPSC did not issue admit cards for the Preliminary examination, scheduled to be held on 21.09.2025, to the registered candidates who did not possess Bar enrolment on the date of advertisement for the recruitment, i.e. 23.12.2024. This was done notwithstanding the following High Court order which directed the Commission to allow non-enrolled candidates to appear for the examination.

Being aggrieved by non-issuance of the admit cards, which were issued to the enrolled candidates only on 11.09.2025, the petitioners approached the High Court. They challenged the manner in which the CGPSC interpreted the clarification issued by the Supreme Court in para 90 of the AIJA judgment.

The petitioners were of the view that on the basis of the January 2025 order of the High Court when a corrigendum was issued by the CGPSC and even the non-enrolled candidates were allowed to apply for the examination, they cannot be thrown out of the recruitment process by technically construing the 'clarification clause' of the Supreme Court.

It was their further contention that as per the All India Judges Association Case (2002), the Supreme Court had done away with enrolment/minimum practice criteria and therefore, the government could not have brought in the amendment in 2024 requiring candidates to mandatorily enrol before applying for the examination in stark contravention of the Apex Court ruling.

However, such contention was heavily controverted by the CGPSC which argued that as per the very clarification issued by the Supreme Court in AIJA judgment's Para 90, no room was left for allowing non-enrolled candidates to appear for the examination. Since the clarification required the State Public Service Commissions to proceed as per the rules “which were applicable at the time of advertisement/notification”, the CGPSC had no other option but to exclude the non-enrolled candidates.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice Sinha found enough force in the submissions made on behalf of the CGPSC and held that Para 90 of the AIJA judgment has left no scope for any interference by the High Court. Therefore, even though the High Court had itself relaxed the enrolment requirement by it January 2025 order, it cannot allow such candidates to sit for the examination in view of the Supreme Court judgment which required rules at the time of advertisement to be followed.

Accordingly, no relief was granted to the petitioners, as a result of which the candidates who were not enrolled with the Bar Council on 23.12.2024 are now excluded from the recruitment process. The writ petition(s) were dismissed.

(Detailed order of the Court is awaited.)