SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 1117

V.S.SIRPURKAR, R.M.LODHA
Mallaraddi H. Itagi – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Karnataka – Respondent


Judgment :

Application for impleadment/intervention is allowed.

2. We need not go in details of the matter. These are appeals against the High Court to the claim of the appellants herein nine in number who applied for the posts of direct District Judges and were not considered for the posts on the ground that they were holding the Government posts and they had also not put in seven years of practice as an Advocate. The appellants challenged this and the High Court has repelled the challenge taking the view that the appellants were the Government servants holding regular posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors etc. and they were on the regular panel on the Government and were also members of the regular cadre.

The High Court formulated two points. They are as under :

"1. Whether the Petitioners 1 to 9 were practising advocates on the date of the submission of their applications to the first Respondent and as such were eligible to be considered for appointment as District Judges in terms of the qualification prescribed under Schedule given to Rule 2 of the Rules?

2. Whether the qualification prescribed in Schedule given to Rule 2 of the Rules that an applicant













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top