P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Minimum Cases Criteria For Lawyers To Appear In Superior Judicial Exams

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criterion requiring lawyers to have been engaged in 50 cases per year in last preceding 3 years, in order to appear for the Superior Judicial Services Examination in both states for the post of Additional District Judge.

The plea had challenged Rule11(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and a similar rule in Punjab.

According to the rule, the applicant “must be an income tax assessee for at least three assessment years preceding the date of application, with gross professional income of not less than rupees five lakhs per annum. The applicant shall also be required to attach the proof of his independent engagement and conducting of not less than fifty cases (other than bunch cases) per year in the preceding three years.”

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry while dismissing the plea noted that, the co-ordinate bench in Dheeraj Singh Sihag vs The Hon'Ble Punjab And Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Rule and the same has attained finality as it has not been challenged.

"There is no substance in the present petition," it added further.

Advocate Kanu Sharma, submitted that in the plea that she is continuously practicing since her enrolment and has more than 15 Years but despite her vast experience, she is unable to fill the form for Additional District Judge Examination in the cadre of Haryana as well as Punjab due to the fact that she has not been engaged with 50 cases per Year in last three preceding years.

"The arbitrary condition of having been engaged in 50 cases per year in last three preceding years to appear for Additional District Judge examination urder Direct Recruitment is clearly violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India," added the plea.

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, appearing for the High Court, apprised the Court that a challenge to the rule was dismissed last year by a Division Bench of the High Court.

During the hearing the Court refused to accept the argument that specifying number of cases as eligibility criteria is arbitrary and violation of Article 233 of Constitution, which requires an advocate to have at least seven years practice to be a district judge.

Chief Justice Nagu remarked that the additional criteria can always be laid down by the High Court for "ensuring merit."

Title: KANU SHARMA V/S HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND OTHERS