SC Permits Serving Judicial Officers To Appear For District Judges Examination As Interim Measure

In a civil writ petition tagged with a pending SLP on the eligibility of serving judicial officers to apply for direct recruitment as District Judges, the Supreme Court’s Vacation Bench of Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, on Wednesday, issued notice, and permitted the petitioners to appear in the examination.

“However, the result of the examination, so far as the petitioners are concerned, shall not be announced until further orders of this Court”, the bench held in its order.

The SLP, Dheeraj Mor v Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, has been pending since 2015.  The case arose out of a Delhi high court judgment in 2015, in which the High Court, had interpreted Article 233 of the Constitution – dealing with promotion or posting to the post of district Judges – to mean that it prohibits and bars the members of the judicial service from being appointed under direct recruitment procedure and that the appointee must be an advocate at the time of his appointment.

Petitioners in this and related cases have claimed that they have, before being appointed to judicial service, worked as an advocate or a pleader for seven years, thus qualifying themselves for direct recruitment under Article 233.  In the alternative, they  have to aspire for promotion as District Judges.

The Delhi High Court refused to declare Article 233(2) as ultra vires and antithetical to Article 14, as it has been a part of the original Constitution, since its adoption on November 26, 1949.

The case, being heard by the bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and S.Abdul Nazeer, is listed for next hearing on July 19.  On May 5, the bench had granted similar interim relief to the petitioner in G.Sabita v High  Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

In August, 2016 a two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre considered the question ‘whether a person in Judicial or Government Service, can participate in District Judge selection process or he has to resign his job before applying for it?

The Bench held that Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India only prohibits the appointment of a person as District Judge, who is already in the service of the Union or the State, but not the selection of such a person. The Court has set aside the Patna High Court judgment which had required the aspirant to resign his membership of the subordinate judicial service if he aspires to become a District judge.

“For any youngster the choice must appear very cruel, to give up the existing employment for the uncertain possibility of securing a better employment. If the appellant accepted the advice of the High Court but eventually failed to get selected and appointed as a District Judge, he might have to regret his choice for the rest of his life. Unless providence comes to the help of the appellant to secure better employment elsewhere or become a successful lawyer, if he chooses to practice thereafter the choice is bound to ruin the appellant. The High Court we are sure did not intend any such unwholesome consequences", said Justice Chelameswar in his Judgment.