Advocates Cannot Claim Exclusive Quota In District Judge Direct Recruitment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench today held that the 25% quota set for direct recruitment for the post of district judges is not exclusively for the candidates from the bar. 

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran held that : 

"We are also not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising advocates. We are of the view that if the contention in this respect is accepted, it will amount to providing a “quota” for the advocates having seven years' practice. A plain and literal reading of Article 233(2) does not contemplate such a situation. Therefore, the contention as canvassed in that regard does not hold water." 

The bench concluded this while holding that a judicial officer, who has already completed 7 years in the Bar or has a combined experience of 7 years both as a lawyer and as a judge, is entitled to be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar vacancy.

During the hearings, the respondents had argued that, as per the directions issued in All India Judges' Association and Others v. Union of India and Others in paragraphs 27 and 28, a quota of 75:25 for recruitment to the posts of district judges in all States was created - 75% vacancies to be filled by promotion and the rest 25% for direct recruitment. This 25% as per the respondents, was exclusively meant for eligible advocates. 

The relevant portion of the 2002 directions states : 

" While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service ie the District Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both written and viva voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an ob- jective method of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service.

Furthermore, there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however, of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned: 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority." 

Today, the Constitution Bench, while holding that serving judicial officers having a combined experience of more that 7 years are eligible to compete in the direct recruitment seats for District Judges, rejected the argument that such seats are exclusively for advocates.

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.

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

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

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment