Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that quashed the appointments of several candidates, including Deepak Aggarwal, to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Haryana. The High Court found that these candidates, who were full-time government employees, did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which requires candidates to have been advocates for at least seven years and not to be in government service. The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting the meaning of 'the service' and 'advocate' under Article 233(2). The appellants argued that their roles as Public Prosecutors or Assistant District Attorneys did not disqualify them from being considered advocates. However, the court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the appellants were indeed in government service and thus ineligible for the judicial appointments. The court clarified that the term 'advocate' in Article 233(2) refers to individuals who are not in government service and have practiced law for the requisite period. The court also noted that the Bar Council of India Rules could not override the constitutional provisions regarding eligibility for judicial appointments. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's ruling, reinforcing the interpretation that full-time government employees cannot be appointed as District Judges under Article 233(2).
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Eligibility for District Judges - Interpretation of Article 233(2) - Full-time government employees ineligible for appointment as District Judges - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 233(2) - The court held that individuals in full-time government service, including Public Prosecutors and Assistant District Attorneys, do not meet the eligibility criteria for appointment as District Judges as they are considered to be in 'the service' of the State. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate that only advocates not in government service can be appointed (Paras 1-42).
Issue of Consideration
Interpretation of 'the service' and 'advocate' under Article 233(2) of the Constitution; eligibility of full-time government employees for appointment as District Judges.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the appointments of the appellants as Additional District and Sessions Judges, affirming that full-time government employees are ineligible under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Eligibility for appointment
- Article 233(2) interpretation
- Government employment disqualification
- Bar Council of India Rules
- Judicial appointments
