Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court, in a reference by a three-Judge Bench, examined substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. The core dispute was whether serving judicial officers, who had previously practiced as advocates for seven years, could be directly recruited as District Judges against vacancies reserved for advocates. Petitioners, representing in-service judicial officers, argued that Article 233(2) provides two distinct sources of recruitment: persons already in judicial service and advocates with seven years' practice, and that no additional eligibility conditions apply to those already in service. They contended that the decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi misconstrued the provision by requiring a candidate to be a practicing advocate at the time of application, thereby rendering the first category superfluous. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions including Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab and Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondents, opposing the inclusion of judicial officers, argued that the consistent interpretation over six decades, as affirmed in cases like Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik, established that direct recruitment was exclusively from practicing advocates. They invoked the doctrine of stare decisis and emphasized that once a person joins judicial service, they cease to be an advocate and thus fall outside the quota reserved for advocates. The Constitution Bench framed four specific questions to resolve the conflict. The judgment, as provided, contains only the submissions and the index to the full analysis; the conclusive findings and directions are not included in the extracted text.
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy? (ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both? (iii) Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge? (iv) Whether a person who has been Civil Judge for a period of seven years or has been an Advocate and Civil Judge for a combined period of seven years or more than seven years would be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India?
Law Points
- interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India
- two sources of recruitment for district judges
- eligibility of serving judicial officers for direct recruitment
- requirement of continuous practice as advocate
- doctrine of stare decisis
- Constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 16
