Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of Dheeraj More vs Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi, the matter which was brought before the Bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Vineet Saran and Arun Mishra was , whether the direct recruitment of Judicial Officers to the post of District Judge is constitutionally valid under the quota reserved for the Advocates ( members of the Bar). Also previously in this case the interpretation of Article 233 was referred by the Division Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice MM Shantanagoudar to a larger bench. Today the three Judge bench ultimately held that "The rules framed by the HC prohibiting Judicial service officers from staking claim to the post of District Judge against the post reserved for Advocates by way of Direct Recruitment can not be said to be as ultra vires and are in conformity with Article 14, 16 and 233 of Constitution of India."
The Court also further presenting their view suggested that, in such recruitment of this quota for Bar not only gives opportunity to the Advocates or candidates in service but also to practicing candidates by the Constitutional Scheme to excel and achieve what they aspire. It was also observed that under this quota the eligibility criteria for the appointment is requirement of minimum of seven years of practice, thus judicial officers are clearly not eligible for this quota, the court remarked. Also the judgement passed by Justice Bhat also recognised the difference and importance of this two stream recruitment process which is in conformity to the constitution of India and is actually with a view to take benefits from the experience of practicing lawyers in different and various courts of India. He also remarked," the Constitution makers clearly wished to draw a distinction between the two sources of appointment to the post of District Judge for one i.e Advocate's eligibility was spelled out in negative phraseology i.e not ;less than seven years of practice; for judicial officers no condition was stipulated in Article 233 of the Indian Constitution, this clearly meant that they are not eligible for the appointment by direct recruitment as they did not and could not be considered as Advocates with seven years of practice, once they entered the Judicial service".
Also court reminded of the only way of promotion of Judicial officers as District judge is under Article 236 (b) of the Constitution as is the rule framed by the High Court of Delhi.
86540
103860
630
114
59824