Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-Civil Appeal No. 3021 of 1997

Appellant responded to an advertisement issued by the High Court of Delhi inviting applications from candidates who have practiced as advocate for recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service claiming that she had put in experience for not less then seven years as an advocates at the time of filing the application. In 1982 Mrs. Sushma Suri passed the examination of Advocate on Record conducted by Supreme Court of India and in 1986 she was appointed as Assistant Government Advocate. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Additional Gov­ernment Advocate in the Supreme Court of India. When she was not called for interview, she filed a petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court relying on a Division Bench decision of the same court in Oma Shanker Sharma v. Delhi Administration & Anr.1, as affir­med by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 3088/ 88 held that the petitioner is not en­titled to be considered for appointment. Hence this appeal.

2. The High Court in Oma Shanker Sharma’s case held that there are two sources of recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service namely, (i) officers in Delhi J