Summary
The Supreme Court held that serving judicial officers cannot compete for District Judge vacancies reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar. Seven years’ earlier advocacy, judicial service alone or a combination of both does not satisfy that route. Eligible advocates must have the requisite immediately preceding practice and continue practising at the prescribed cut-off and appointment. Rules excluding judicial officers from that quota were upheld, and Vijay Kumar Mishra was overruled on permitting in-service participation.
Issues
- Whether serving judicial officers could compete in the direct-recruitment quota reserved for advocates.
- Whether earlier advocacy or combined judicial and Bar experience satisfied Article 233(2).
- What followed for appointments obtained under interim orders.
Provisions considered
- Article 233, Constitution of IndiaMaintained separate routes for serving judicial officers and direct recruitment from eligible practising advocates. (¶¶ Mishra J: 6, Mishra J: 13, Mishra J: 14, Mishra J: 45, Mishra J: 47, Bhat J: 24, Bhat J: 27, Bhat J: 38)
Held
- The judicial-service and Bar sources are distinct. Serving judicial officers can become District Judges through promotion or the applicable limited competitive examination, but cannot compete for the quota reserved for direct recruitment from advocates. Seven years’ advocacy before joining service does not alter that exclusion. (¶¶ Mishra J: 13, Mishra J: 14, Mishra J: 28, Mishra J: 45, Mishra J: 47, Bhat J: 27, Bhat J: 28, Bhat J: 38)
- The direct-recruitment requirement concerns at least seven years’ practice immediately preceding the prescribed cut-off, with continued practice at application and appointment. Judicial experience cannot be treated as, or combined with advocacy to constitute, the requisite practice. (¶¶ Mishra J: 14, Mishra J: 23, Mishra J: 45, Mishra J: 47)
- Rules excluding judicial officers from the Bar quota conform to Articles 14, 16 and 233. The distinct recruitment sources do not amount to unconstitutional discrimination; promotion opportunities remain available under the governing rules. (¶¶ Mishra J: 30, Mishra J: 31, Mishra J: 33, Mishra J: 46, Mishra J: 47, Bhat J: 30, Bhat J: 31)
- Vijay Kumar Mishra was overruled insofar as it permitted serving judicial officers to participate in selection for direct recruitment to the Bar quota by distinguishing eligibility at selection from eligibility at appointment. Eligibility must be met at the prescribed stage, rather than cured after selection. (¶¶ Mishra J: 24, Mishra J: 47, Bhat J: 36, Bhat J: 37)
- Ineligible in-service appointees selected under interim orders could claim no vested benefit and had to revert to their original posts. If their promotion entitlement had matured and juniors had been promoted, the High Court was to consider promotion under prevailing rules. (¶ Mishra J: 48)
Result
Reference answered against eligibility of serving judicial officers for the direct-recruitment Bar quota. Connected proceedings disposed of without costs, with reversion and consideration of any matured promotion claims as directed.