The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a judicial officer, who has a combined seven years’ experience as a judicial officer and as an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a district judge, as it overruled its ruling in a 2020 case. In two separate but concurring judgments, a five-judge Constitution Bench presided by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said the top court’s 1984 decision in Satya Narain Singh vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others, and 2020 decision in Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi, “do not lay down the correct proposition of law.” Writing for himself and Justices Aravind Kumar, S C Sharma and K Vinod Chandran, CJI Gavai said, “The observations made in Satya Narain Singh that if a person who is already in service is appointed as a district judge on the recommendation of the High Court, thereby overlooking the claims of all other seniors in the subordinate judiciary, would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not correct.” The other judgment was by Justice M M Sundresh. ‘Would result in denial of an equal treatment’ “On the contrary, we find that it will enable the more meritorious candidates amongst the judicial officers to compete with the advocates, and only if they are found to be more meritorious, will they be selected and appointed. Not only that, but Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would require that equal treatment be given to all eligible candidates. In fact, the observations which amount to creating a “quota” for advocates, having practice of seven years, in the matter of direct recruitment for the post of district judges would violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” “We, therefore, find that barring a person, who is otherwise eligible but at the time of advertisement, is in judicial service of the Union or of the State and is prevented from competing with the candidates who are advocates having practice of seven years, for appointment(s) in the stream of direct recruitment would result in denial of an equal treatment. When the appointments are made solely on the basis of merit, then the claim of meritorious judicial officers cannot be overlooked. It is only merit and merit alone that shall matter.” Referring to the decision in the 2020 Dheeraj Mor case, the court said the SC three-judge bench in that case, while interpreting Article 233 (which deals with the appointment of district judges) of the Constitution, had held that the only mode provided for the appointment of in-service candidates to the post of district judge was by way of promotion. The Constitution Bench added, “If the interpretation as sought to be given in the judgments of this Court in the cases of Satya Narain Singh (supra) till Dheeraj Mor is to be accepted, it will render the first part of clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution redundant.” Experience of judicial officers The bench said that “to promote efficiency in the cadre of district judges, the young, talented, meritorious judicial officers should not be denied an opportunity.” “The experience the judicial officers gain while working as judges is much greater than the one a person gains while working as an advocate. Apart from that, before commencing their work as judicial officers, the judges are also required to undergo rigorous training of at least one year.” The bench stated that eligibility for appointment as a district judge or an additional district judge is to be assessed at the time of application. “In order to ensure a level playing field,” the SC also directed that “the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/ Additional District Judge for both the advocates and the judicial officers will be 35 years as on the date of application.” “Consequently, all such rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the aforesaid answers shall stand quashed and set aside. It is directed that all the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts shall frame/amend the rules in accordance with what has been held by us herein above, within a period of three months from today”.
