Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Bar Enrollment Rule for Judicial Exam, Citing Supreme Court Mandate

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for judicial aspirants, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declined to intervene in the State Public Service Commission's decision to bar candidates not enrolled with the Bar Council from the Civil Judge preliminary examination. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, dismissed petitions from aggrieved candidates, holding that a recent Supreme Court judgment has conclusively settled the eligibility criteria for the ongoing recruitment process.

The decision brings a dramatic close to a months-long legal battle that saw the High Court itself initially relax the eligibility rules, only to reverse its stance following a definitive pronouncement from the nation's Apex Court. As a result, candidates who applied for the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service-2024 examination without a Bar Council enrollment as of the advertisement date, December 23, 2024, are now excluded from the recruitment process.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Controversial Rule Amendment

The controversy began with a Gazette Notification issued by the Chhattisgarh Department of Law and Legislative Affairs on July 5, 2024. This notification amended Rule 7(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The new rule stipulated that to be eligible for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, a candidate must not only possess a law degree but also be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.

When the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued its advertisement for the Civil Judge Examination-2024 on December 23, 2024, it adhered to this amended rule. This immediately sparked a legal challenge from aspirants who, until that point, were not required to be enrolled advocates to apply. The petitioners argued that this new condition was an arbitrary barrier, inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association Case (2002) , which had sought to broaden the talent pool for the lower judiciary.

A Glimmer of Hope: The High Court's Interim Relief

Initially, the High Court appeared to agree with the petitioners. In a pivotal order dated January 22, 2025, the Court found the mandatory Bar enrollment requirement to be legally unsound. The bench at the time opined that the focus should be on widening the pool of applicants to ensure the selection of the most meritorious candidates. The Court stated that the "scope of candidates for participation should not be narrowed down by imposing 'unwarranted conditions', rather more candidates should be allowed to participate so that better qualified candidates may be selected."

Acting on this reasoning, the High Court passed an interim order directing the CGPSC to permit non-enrolled candidates to submit their online applications. Crucially, the Court clarified the wide-reaching nature of its directive:

“It is also made clear that this order would operate in rem and not in personam and even those candidates who have not approached this High Court seeking for the aforesaid relief, shall be permitted to avail the benefit of the present order.”

In compliance, the CGPSC issued a corrigendum on January 23, 2025, extending the application deadline to February 23, 2025, and allowing law graduates without bar enrollment to apply. This decision was a significant victory for the aspirants, who proceeded with their applications and preparations for the exam, originally scheduled for May 18, 2025.

The Supreme Court's Decisive Intervention

The landscape shifted dramatically with the pendency of the landmark All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (AIJA) case before the Supreme Court. Recognizing its potential impact, the Chhattisgarh High Court, by an order on April 7, 2025, stayed the preliminary examination to await the Apex Court's judgment.

On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the AIJA case, mandating a minimum of three years of practice as an advocate for eligibility to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). While this new rule was prospective, the Court included a critical clarification in Paragraph 90 of its judgment to address ongoing recruitment processes that had been held in abeyance:

“Needless to state that all such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification.”

This clause became the central point of contention. The CGPSC, interpreting this directive strictly, concluded it was bound to follow the rules as they existed on December 23, 2024—the date of the original advertisement. This meant enforcing the mandatory Bar enrollment requirement, regardless of the High Court's subsequent interim order.

Consequently, when the CGPSC rescheduled the preliminary exam for September 21, 2025, and issued admit cards on September 11, it only did so for candidates who were enrolled advocates on the advertisement date. The non-enrolled candidates, who had applied under the High Court's interim protection, were left without admit cards, effectively disqualifying them.

The Final Hearing: High Court Defers to Supreme Court

The aggrieved candidates returned to the High Court, arguing that the CGPSC had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's clarification. Their counsel vehemently contended that since the CGPSC had issued a corrigendum and accepted their applications, it was unjust to now exclude them based on a technical interpretation. They argued that the spirit of the High Court's January order, which aimed to broaden participation, should prevail.

However, the CGPSC countered that its hands were tied. It argued that Paragraph 90 of the AIJA judgment left no room for ambiguity. The Supreme Court's instruction to proceed based on the "rules which were applicable on the date of advertisement/notification" was a clear and binding mandate.

The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Sinha, found "enough force" in the submissions made on behalf of the CGPSC. The Court held that the specific clarification in the AIJA judgment superseded its own earlier interim order. Despite having previously relaxed the enrollment requirement, the High Court concluded it could not now permit non-enrolled candidates to sit for the examination in light of the Supreme Court's unequivocal direction.

In dismissing the writ petitions, the High Court affirmed the CGPSC's actions, thereby solidifying the ouster of candidates who were not enrolled with the Bar Council on December 23, 2024. While a detailed order is awaited, the bench's decision underscores the hierarchical finality of judicial pronouncements and serves as a stark reminder that interim reliefs are always subject to the final outcome of a dispositive ruling from a higher court.