Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A petition was filed by a law teacher in Madras High Court regarding directions to amend the Tamil Nadu State judicial service cadre and recruitment rules 2017 as it did not permit law teachers to appear in examination for selection of district judges but the same was rejected by the court.
As stated in the petition he was qualified for the exam as stated in article 233 (2). He elaborated by stating that he had 7 years of practice as an advocate before joining teaching profession.
Article 223 (2) says that "A person not already in the service of the union of the states and only be eligible to be appointed as a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years and advocate of leader and is recommended by the high court for appointment."
The Madras High Court by referring president in Chandra Mohan vs. State of UP which stated the interpretation of word “service” in Article 233 ( 2) means “judicial service” and hence the division bench comprising of justices S Mani Kumar and Subramanyam Prasad rejected the argument.
In The case which was referred Supreme Court has set aside the provisions of UP higher judicial service rules which permitted government offices with 7 year of practice to join the cadre of district judge.
The petitioner raised contention by stating a case of Vijay Kumar Mishra versus High Court of judicature at Patna, in that it was held that serving judicial officers need not resign from the service to appear for the district judge examination. It was pointed out by Court that the restriction under article 233 ( 2 ) was applicable only for appointment of person and not for appearing in exam and also show the applicants only need to resign from the service if they get selected in the examination.
Raising the above contention petitioner ask for the leave of the court to appear in the exam however that was rejected by the court on the point that the word service means judicial service as integrated under article 233 (2).
The petition was dismissed by stating, “The words the service in article 233 (2) of the constitution of India, means only judicial service”. Contention of the petitioner teaching law in college is ancillary to judicial service cannot be accepted."
86540
103860
630
114
59824