( 1 ) THIS judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petition, namely, CWP Nos. 286/97,353/97 and 314/97.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have applied for recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in pursuance of the advertisement, issued by the High Court of Delhi, inviting applications from the candidates who have practiced as Advocates for not less than seven years.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent. The High Court of Delhi has called for candidates who have less experience than the petitioners for an interview, but the petitioners have been wrongly denied the opportunity of being considered for the appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner Mrs. Sushma Suri in Civil Writ Petition No. 286/97 passed her L. L. B. examination in the year 1977. In 1982 she also passed the examination of advocate on Record conducted by the Supreme Court of India and in 1986 she was appointed as Assistant Government Advocate. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Additional Advocate in the Supreme Court.

( 5 ) THE petitioner, Jit Ram Kasana in Writ Petition No. 314/97 was enrolled as a member of the Bar on 12. 9. 1982, and on 8. 12. 89 he joined as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation later he become public prosecutor in the CBI on 2. 4. 1996. He has also applied for the post of Delhi Higher Judicial Service but was not called for the interview.

( 6 ) THE petitioner Smt. Reeta Dulla in the Writ Petition No-353/97 was enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi on 26. 10. 1976 and after completing nine years of practice she was selected by the DPSC to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the Directorate of Prosecution, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, She has also applied for the post of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in pursuance of the advertisement of the High Court of Delhi. She has also not received an interview call on the ground that the Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutor cannot be considered for the appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services.

( 7 ) THE Civil Writ Petition No. 286/97 was listed on 24. 1. 97 and notice was made returnable on 27th January, 1997 because of urgency. The other two petitioners are being disposed of since questions involved are identical. The short question that arises in these petition is regarding the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. Article 233 reads as order :

"appointment OF DISTRICT JUDGES: (i) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of District Judges, in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. (ii) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years as Advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. "

( 8 ) MR. Gopal Subramanium, and Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners, submitted that these petitioners fulfill all the requisite qualifications for the appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and still they have not been considered for the appointment.

( 9 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are Advocates and Members of the Bar, Merely because of their appointment as Additional Government Advocate in the Supreme Court on the Public Prosecutor, they do not cease to be Advocates and/or Members of the Bar and the High Court, was not justified in not even considering them for the appointment:

( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submilled that on plain inlerpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the said appointments. According to them the crux of the matter is that the candidates must not be in the service of the Union or the Stat