Civil Judges' Recruitment : Gujarat & Karnataka HCs Suspend Selection Process To Await Supreme Court Judgment On Minimum Practice Condition

In the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court was informed today on behalf of Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts that the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been kept in abeyance given the fact that the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether a condition of minimum practice as a lawyer must be prescribed to apply for the post.

The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, which disposed of the listed interlocutory application in view of a statement made by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj that since the Court's judgment is reserved, relevant notifications have been issued and the recruitment process will not proceed.

Taking note, the bench recorded in the order:

"The learned ASG submits that insofar as High Court of Karnataka is concerned, the High Court of Karnataka has already put the selection process in abeyance in order to await the decision of this Court with regard to providing minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer as a pre-condition for appearing for the exam of Civil Judge (Junior Division). He further states that insofar as High Court of Gujarat is concerned, the procedure is stayed by this Court...a similar notification is already issued. In that view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration in the IAs."

The order was passed in an application filed by Advocate-on-Record Ajit Pravin Wagh, who was led by Senior Advocate BH Marlapalle.

To recap, earlier this year, the Court considered whether the condition of 3 years of practice at the Bar in addition to a legal degree needs to be restored to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam. This requirement was done away with by the Court in the All India Judges Association case (2002).

On March 4, the Court stayed the recruitment process of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC), Civil Judge-Junior Division in Gujarat. It expressed dissatisfaction with the Gujarat High Court allowing the recruitment process (advertised on January 30) to proceed without any requirement of minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer.

Notably, the advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission had not prescribed that a candidate should have qualification of minimum number of years of practice as an advocate.

Observing that it had reserved judgment on the issue whether freshers should be permitted to apply for entry level posts in judicial service, the Supreme Court expressed that the High Court should not have allowed the recruitment when it was seized of the issue.

Case Details: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989