Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Bhimrao Suryawanshi, was working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in Maharashtra. She had previously practiced as an Advocate from 17 September 2001 to 5 April 2007, then worked as a Legal Officer in MSEB from 5 April 2007 to 31 March 2009, and thereafter as Assistant Public Prosecutor from 2 April 2009 onwards. The High Court of Bombay issued an advertisement on 30 June 2014 for the post of District Judge, requiring a candidate to be a holder of a Degree in Law and practising as an Advocate in the High Court or subordinate courts for not less than seven years on the date of publication of the advertisement. The advertisement further stated that in computing the period during which a candidate has been an Advocate, any period during which he has held the post of a Public Prosecutor or Government Advocate or Judicial Officer shall be included. The petitioner applied but was not allowed to appear for the examination on the ground that she did not have seven years of practice as an Advocate. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that she is qualified and for a direction to permit her to appear. The Court examined the eligibility criteria and noted that the petitioner had practiced as an Advocate for about 5 years and 7 months, and thereafter worked as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for about 5 years and 8 months. The Court held that the period as Assistant Public Prosecutor is expressly included in the computation of the period as an Advocate under the advertisement itself. Therefore, the petitioner had more than seven years of combined experience. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the rejection, and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Eligibility for District Judge - Inclusion of period as Public Prosecutor - The issue was whether the period of service as Assistant Public Prosecutor can be counted as practice as an Advocate for the purpose of seven years' eligibility under the advertisement for District Judge post - The Court held that the period during which a candidate has been an Advocate includes any period during which he has held the post of a Public Prosecutor or Government Advocate or Judicial Officer, as per the eligibility criteria itself - The petitioner's total period as Advocate and as Assistant Public Prosecutor exceeded seven years, thus she was eligible - The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period during which the petitioner worked as an Assistant Public Prosecutor can be included in computing the seven years of practice as an Advocate for eligibility to appear for the District Judge examination.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination for the post of District Judge advertised by Press Advertisement No.A.5504/2014 dated 30 June 2014. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Interpretation of eligibility criteria for District Judge post
- inclusion of period as Public Prosecutor in computing seven years of practice as Advocate
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
