Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., B.L. Hansaria and S.C. Sen, JJ.
All India Judges' Association and others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
IA No. 27 in RP(C) No. 249 of 1992 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Decided On : 13-10-1995
ORDER :
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. - By this application a clarification is sought in regard to this Court's direction' fixing the requirements of legal practice of three years as an essential qualification for recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy. In this connection our attention is drawn to an order of clarification dated 17-2-1995 in connection with a similar rule in the State of Gujarat. The relevant rule of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 to which attention is drawn is Rule 5(3)(viii) whereunder law graduates working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General's Office and Law Department in the Government Secretariat for less than ten years of total service of which less than two years were spent after the acquisition of degree of Law are eligible for appointment. Learned counsel for the State of Kerala says that as far as he recalls this Rule has undergone a change subsequent to the decision of this Court providing for the requirement of three years' practice at the Bar as essential for appointment to judicial office at the lowest rung of the ladder. In regard to a similar rule which was in existence in the State of Gujarat we had clarified that in such cases the direction regarding minimum three years' practice at the Bar would stricto sensu apply. Keeping in view the said clarification as well as the statement made by the learned counsel for the State of Kerala we clarify that in regard to selections made, if any, under Rule 5(3)(viii) prior to the change in the Rule the direction in regard to minimum three years' practice at the Bar may not be applied stricto sensu. However, this direction will be with regard to selections made under the aforesaid Rule prior to the date of the judgment and the consequential amendment in the Rule. It will not apply to other cases. The IA is disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
