IMPORTANT POINT
Representing the employer in a Court or Tribunal would not amount to practice at Bar and criteria of three years practice at Bar as eligibility for joining State Judicial Service would not stand satisfied.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-The petitioners herein are aspirants of joining Rajasthan Judicial Service. They are working as Legal Assistants in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan. Prior thereto they practiced as lawyers but they had not completed three years period as was necessary in terms of the rules as thence existing.

2. The contention of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that they having been allowed to appear at the written examination and having been called for interview, their candidature could not have been cancelled on the purported ground of non-completion of three years practice in terms of the All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India [(2002) 4 SCC 247]; keeping in view the fact that they have been representing their department before the district courts and Tribunal like lawyers in respect whereof they had affirmed the requisite affidavits and filed certificates granted by the Competent Authority.

3. Further contention of the petitioners is that having regard to the decisions of this Court in All India Judges Association and Others (supra) wherein this Court has laid down the law that practice at the Bar would not be necessary for joining the Judicial Service; this Court should set aside the impugned directions issued by the respondent-Commission.

4. It is not in dispute that three years minimum practice was a prerequisite at the relevant time for being eligible to enter in the judicial service.

5. In All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others [(1993) 4 SCC 288] it was inter alia directed:

"52...(a) The legal practice of three years should be made one of the essential qualifications for recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy.

Further, wherever the recruitment of the judicial officers at the lowest rung is made through the Public Service Commission, a representative of the High Court should be associated with the selection process and his advice should prevail unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting it, which reasons should be recorded in writing.

The rules for recruitment of the judicial officers should be amended forthwith to incorporate the above directions."

6. In the said decision, this Court was inter alia considering the question as regard uniform hierarchy and designation. It was opined:

"20...In this connection, it may be pointed out that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, no person is eligible to be appointed a District Judge unless he has been an advocate or a pleader for not less than seven years while Articles 217(2)(b) and 124(3)(b) require at least ten years practice as an advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a persons to the posts of the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court, respectively...."

6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned paragraph would leave no manner of doubt that the minimum legal practice of three years was prescribed as an essential qualification to be eligible for being appointed as Judicial Officer so as to ensure recruitment of competent, independent and honest judicial officers for the purpose of strengthening the administration of justice and the confidence of public in it.

7. This Court, therefore, laid down the law to the effect that a candidate must have three years practice at the Bar.

8. The petitioners herein admittedly did not complete the said period of three years of active practice at the Bar. They joined services prior thereto. They might have been representing their department while in service before the Tribunal but we fail to understand as to how they could appear before the Court like lawyers. Be that as it may, representing the employer in a Court or Tribunal would not amount to practice at the Bar and as such the criteria laid down by this Court would not stand satisfied.

9. Our attention was drawn to an order of this Court passed in I.A. Nos. 31, 32 of 1995 in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 in Writ Pet