1. Eligibility for judicial appointments — Request to treat experience as Legal Assistants in non-court institutions as experience at the Bar. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 470
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., K. Venkataswami, M. K. Mukherjee, JJ.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS, PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
IAs Nos. 29, 30, 33-35 in R.P. (C) No. 249 of 1992 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989 with IAs Nos. 6, 14-20 in WPs (C) Nos. 1022 of 1989 and 51 of 1995,
decided on February 26, 1996.
Experience for judicial appointments requires intimate knowledge and association with the judicial system; employment as a Legal Assistant in non-court institutions does not constitute "experience at the Bar" as it lacks the necessary exposure.
Headnote:(A) Judicial Appointments - Experience at the Bar - Whether Legal Assistants working in institutions other than courts can be treated as having experience at the Bar for the purpose of appointment to judicial posts - Legal Assistants working in different institutions and bodies do not gain the experience and exposure essential for manning judicial posts - Mere appearances are insufficient; what is required is actual intimate knowledge and association with the judicial system itself. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Applications were filed seeking that Legal Assistants employed in various institutions other than courts be permitted to apply for judicial appointments on the ground that their employment should be counted as experience at the Bar.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the experience gained by Legal Assistants in non-court institutions is not equivalent to the exposure required for judicial roles.
Issues: Whether experience as a Legal Assistant in non-court institutions constitutes "experience at the Bar" for the purpose of judicial appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: For judicial appointments, the critical requirement is not mere appearance in court but an intimate knowledge of and association with the judicial system, which is not typically acquired by Legal Assistants in non-court bodies.
Result: Applications rejected; Writ Petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
public employment
-
judicial appointments
- eligibility criteria (Para 1)
-
judicial appointments
-
public employment
Table of Contents
2. Contention that experience as Legal Assistants in various institutions and bodies should be treated as experience at the Bar for judicial appointments. (Para 1 )
3. Legal Assistants in non-court institutions lack the necessary exposure and intimate knowledge of the judicial system required for manning judicial posts. (Para 1 )
4. Experience for judicial appointments requires intimate knowledge and association with the judicial system rather than mere appearances or employment in non-court institutions. (Para 1 )
5. Applications rejected and writ petition disposed of. (Para 1 , 4 )
6. Does experience as a Legal Assistant in a non-court institution qualify as experience at the Bar for judicial appointments?
No, because such roles do not provide the essential exposure and intimate knowledge of the judicial system required for judicial posts, and mere appearances are insufficient. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. The question of permitting the Legal Assistants working in different institutions other than the courts for the purpose of appointments on the ground that they should be treated as having experience at the Bar cannot be entertained. The Legal Assistants working in different institutions and bodies do not get the experience and exposure which is important for the purpose of manning judicial posts and it is not possible to lay down guidelines on the basis of a few appearances but what is important is not mere appearance but actual intimate knowledge and association with the system itself. We, therefore, reject the applications.
2. Writ Petition No. 51 of 1995 is heard.
3. No order.
4. Disposed of.
