Summary
The Court rejected serving District Judges’ claim to combine their earlier advocacy with judicial service to qualify for consideration for High Court appointment from the service stream. Article 217(2), Explanation (a), counts specified experience following judicial office, rather than advocacy preceding it. The stream for consideration depends on the candidate’s status when considered; eligibility computation does not permit simultaneous claims in the service and Bar streams.
Issues
- Whether serving judicial officers could count advocacy preceding judicial service towards eligibility for High Court appointment in the service stream.
- Whether the constitutional explanations permit a judicial officer to claim consideration from both appointment streams.
Provisions considered
- Article 217(2), Explanations (a) and (aa), Constitution of IndiaDistinguished the alternative qualifications and the separate rules for computing experience; prior advocacy could not be counted under Explanation (a). (¶¶ 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 45)
Held
- Article 217(2) provides alternative qualifications based on judicial office and advocacy. Explanation (a) accompanies the judicial-office qualification and permits specified additional experience only after holding judicial office. Reading it to include advocacy before joining service would reverse its express temporal condition. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The explanations allow eligible combinations of experience, but the candidate must enter the stream corresponding to the status held on the date of consideration. A serving judicial officer must seek consideration in the service stream and cannot simultaneously claim the Bar stream; a judicial officer who becomes an advocate may seek consideration in that stream. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- The petitioners could not claim seniority solely from recruitment as District Judges while seeking eligibility by combining earlier advocacy with service. Extending their proposed combination to the competing officers would also change their relative position in the zone of consideration. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35)
- Decisions concerning eligibility of tribunal members under Article 217(2)(b) did not resolve the claim of serving judicial officers under Article 217(2)(a). Article 217(2) confers no right to appointment, and the discrimination argument against the prescribed computation was rejected. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47)
Result
Writ petition dismissed as misconceived and the claim untenable. No order as to costs.