Karnataka High Court stops judicial staff without Bar experience from applying to be civil judges
The Karnataka High Court held that the Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2025 don’t allow any exception from the 3-year practice criterion for high court or district judiciary staff.
The petitioner, a law student, argued his case in the Karnataka High Court in person. (File Photo) The Karnataka High Court has stayed a single-judge order that permitted court staff to participate in a civil judge recruitment process despite a new rule mandating three years’ continuous lawyering experience as a key eligibility criterion for the post.
A vacation bench of Justices Sachin Shankar Magadum and Rajesh Rai K passed an interim order on May 7 on an appeal filed by the high court’s registrar-general.
In its order, the bench said, “There shall be an interim stay of the operation and implementation of the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it permits the writ petitioners to submit applications and participate in the preliminary examination, main examination and viva voce relating to recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).”
Yogesha B and 15 other petitioners moved the court assailing the validity of the Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2025, which were notified on March 12, 2026.
The amendment modifies Rule 4 of the Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment Rules 2004. It is brought about in view of the Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges Association versus Union of India 2025.
Senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, along with Advocate Krutika Raghavan, appeared for the high court and argued that the amended rules prescribe a minimum of three years’ continuous Bar practice as an essential eligibility criterion for direct recruitment to the post of civil judge.
The amendment consciously excludes in-service judicial staff/court staff from consideration, while expressly preserving a limited exception for law clerks/research assistants.
The counsel also submitted that since the statutory rules are amended in conformity with the Supreme Court directions and the eligibility criteria mandate continuous bar practice for a minimum period of three years, the single-judge bench was not justified in permitting ineligible candidates to participate in the selection process by way of an interim arrangement.
The court then said, “Prima facie, this court finds that the amendment brought to Rule 4 appears to be a conscious legislative response to the mandate issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the necessity of prior Bar experience for entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment.”
The order added that the amended framework does not allow any exception for in-service staff of the high court or the district judiciary. “Therefore, the continuance of the interim order permitting participation of candidates, who admittedly do not satisfy the amended eligibility criteria, would have a direct bearing on the ongoing recruitment process governed by the amended Rules,” he said.
Question of amendment’s validity pending
The court also noted that the “balance of convenience also lies in favour” of holding the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the amended rules, pending consideration of the larger issue of the amendment’s validity.
The petitioners moved an application on May 12 seeking to vacate the division bench’s interim order on the grounds that if the application deadline passes and the court belatedly ruled in their favour, it would cause severe prejudice to them.
The counsel for the high court informed the court that that a review petition in the matter was pending before the apex court.
While refusing the relief sought by the petitioners, the bench said in its order, “Liberty is given to the respondents to approach the Apex Court to seek clarity in the issue involved between the parties and also the amendment that was brought into effect consequent upon the directions of the Apex Court. Unless the same is clarified by the Apex Court, it is not appropriate for this Court to vacate or modify the order dated 07.05.2026.”
Share
