Case Title: DHEERAJ MOR V. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that civil judges were ineligible for direct recruitment to District Judge positions under the Bar quota.
Article 233(2) of the Constitution specifies that eligibility is based on seven years of continuous practice. "The quota is only available to practising applicants. It is only intended for them", Justice Arun Mishra observed as he read the decision.
"Article 233(2) makes no mention of the eligibility of individuals who are currently employed for consideration as District Judges for positions needing 7 years of experience as an advocate or pleader. A competent attorney or pleader must have seven years of experience, with the restriction that he cannot work for the Union or the State," the Court stated in its ruling.
The Court also stated that the practice mentioned in Article 233(2) is "continuous practice" since it continues not only on the day of appointment but also on the deadline for selection.
"As of the cut-off date, the expression used is a continuous condition of affairs from the past, the requirement of 7 years of minimum experience must be taken into consideration. It is clear from the context in which the phrase "has been in practise" has been used that the provisions pertain to a person who has been an advocate or pleader not only on the deadline date but also at the time of appointment" the Court pointed out.
Earlier, a three-judge panel comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and S. Ravindra Bhat reserved rulings in the matter of Vijay Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. In the judgment of the court, the bench provided the following reference response:-
Members of the State's judicial service may be appointed as district judges through promotion or a narrowly focused competitive examination.
The eligibility is determined by the Rules established under Articles 234 and 235, and the Governor of a State is the authority for the purposes of appointment, promotion, posting, and transfer.
In accordance with Article 232(2), a lawyer or advocate with seven years of experience who is not already employed by the Union or a State may be appointed as a district judge through direct recruitment.
An Advocate must have been actively practising for at least seven years as of the cutoff date and at the time of appointment as a District Judge in order to qualify under Article 233(2). Direct recruitment as a District Judge is not open to members of the judicial service who had 7 years of legal experience prior to joining the service or who combined legal and judicial experience totalling 7 years.
It cannot be argued that the High Court's regulations banning judicial service personnel from directly competing for the position of District Judge against positions designated for attorneys are ultra vires and are in compliance with Articles 14, 16, and 233 of the Indian Constitution.
It cannot be stated that the decision in Vijay Kumar Mishra (above), which allowed judicial officers to apply for the position of District Judge through direct recruitment, accurately laid out the law. This overrides the earlier statement.
Appointments based on temporary orders were void -
The Court further ruled that those district judges who were appointed while still in service on the basis of temporary orders issued by the Supreme Court should be reinstated in their prior positions.