Judicial officers with 7 years experience eligible for direct recruitment as district judges: SC

New Delhi: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench on Thursday overturned a Kerala High Court judgment and held that judicial officers with a combined experience of seven years as advocates and judicial officers are eligible to apply for direct recruitment as district judges under the Bar quota.

The Court clarified that eligibility will be determined as of the date of application, and that candidates must be at least 35 years old.

Pronouncing the order, the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and comprising Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran, directed state governments to frame rules specifying eligibility for in-service candidates.

The Court also overruled its earlier judgment in Dheeraj Mor, which had held that judicial officers could not seek direct recruitment as district judges. The ruling will take effect from October 9, ensuring that past appointments remain unaffected.

Key findings of the SC

• Eligibility Criteria: Judicial officers who had completed seven years of practice at the Bar before joining the judicial service are entitled to apply for direct recruitment as District or Additional District Judges.
• Date of Eligibility: Eligibility is to be assessed at the time of submitting the application.
• Combined Experience Rule: To ensure a level playing field, candidates with seven years’ combined experience as judicial officers and advocates are eligible to apply.
• Minimum Age Requirement: Both advocates and judicial officers must be at least 35 years old on the date of application.
• Overruling Previous Judgments: Earlier Supreme Court decisions from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor were declared incorrect in law.

The bench directed High Courts and state governments to amend their rules in line with this judgment within three months.

Observations by the Court
In his judgment, CJI BR Gavai emphasised parity between advocates and in-service candidates:
“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 direct recruitment to the post of district judge only if he has a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer,” he said.

The CJI further clarified that prior or subsequent experience as a judicial officer or advocate should all count toward the total:

“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.”

Other major takeaways
Continuous Practice Required: The seven-year experience must be continuous. Breaks in practice disqualify candidates.

“If a person has practised for five years, taken a break of ten, and then practised for two more, there will be a disconnect with the legal profession,” the Court observed.

No Separate Quota for Advocates: The plea for a 25% quota for practising advocates under Article 233(2) was rejected.

Encouraging Young Talent: The Court said that meritorious young judicial officers should not be denied an opportunity to compete with advocates, as their training and experience make them strong candidates for district judgeships.

Purpose of Selection: The Court reiterated that the goal of public service recruitment is to appoint “the best and most suitable person for the job.”
Interpretation of Article 233: Article 233 must be read as a whole, and a purposive interpretation—favouring efficiency and merit—should be applied.

Background of the Case
The ruling stemmed from an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment that had annulled the appointment of Rejanish KV, a district judge, on the ground that he was in judicial service at the time of his appointment and therefore not a practising advocate.

Rejanish, who had over seven years of Bar experience, had applied for the post of district judge while also participating in a selection process for Munsiff-Magistrate. He was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate in 2017, and later as a District Judge in 2019.

The High Court, relying on Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, ruled against him, holding that an advocate must remain in active practice until appointment. However, the Division Bench of the High Court noted that similar appointments across India might be affected and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for clarification.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling now settles the issue conclusively, expanding eligibility and promoting parity between advocates and serving judicial officers in the selection of district judges.

(with Live Law inputs)