Back
1995 Supreme(SC) 1525
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
For the Petitioners:- K. Sukumaran, Senior Advocate (C.K. Sasi and G. Prakash, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- M.T. George, Advocate, for the State of Kerala.
The mandatory requirement of three years' legal practice for entry-level judicial recruitment does not apply strictly to selections made under specific service rules prior to the court's judgment and subsequent rule amendments.
Headnote:(A) State Judicial Service Rules - Rule 5(3)(viii) - Recruitment to judicial posts - Essential qualification - Requirement of three years' practice at the Bar - Clarification regarding applicability to selections made prior to judgment and rule amendment - For selections made under the specific rule prior to the date of judgment and consequential amendment, the direction regarding minimum three years' practice at the Bar may not be applied stricto sensu.
Facts of the case:
A clarification was sought regarding the court's direction fixing three years of legal practice as an essential qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung of the judicial hierarchy. A specific rule in the state judicial service rules allowed law graduates working in certain government legal departments, such as the High Court, Subordinate Courts, and Law Department, with limited total service to be eligible for appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court clarified that the requirement of three years' practice at the Bar would not be applied strictly to selections made under the specified rule prior to the date of the judgment and the subsequent amendment of the rule. This exception is limited to such specific prior selections and does not apply to other cases.
Issues: Whether the mandatory requirement of three years' practice at the Bar applies strictly to candidates selected under a specific service rule prior to the court's judgment and the subsequent amendment of said rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the three-year practice requirement is generally essential for judicial recruitment at the lowest rung, it will not be applied stricto sensu to selections made under the specific rule before the judgment and the consequential amendment, ensuring that prior selections are not invalidated, while maintaining the requirement for all other instances.
Result: The IA is disposed of accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
judicial service
- recruitment qualifications
-
judicial service
-
service law
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.
