Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Karan Antil – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Amit Mahajan, J.
INTRODUCTION
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the Notification No. F.1/10/2022-Judl./Suptlaw/213-220 dated 31.01.2023 appointing thirty-two persons (listed in the order of merit) as members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (hereafter 'the DHJS') against permanent posts. The petitioner, essentially, assails the inclusion of the names of respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the select list of candidates who have been offered appointment in the DHJS.
2. The petitioner had also appeared for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination - 2022 (hereafter 'DHJSE-22') along with other candidates and is placed at serial no.36 in the order of merit. The petitioner has not been appointed in the DHJS as the number of vacancies under the general category are limited to thirty-two.
3. Respondent no.6 is placed at serial no.33 in the order of merit but has joined Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and is no longer interested in seeking appointment in the DHJS. However, another candidate, Aashish Rastogi, who was considered disqualified for being appointed, has prevailed in his challenge to being considered disqualified. In terms
The eligibility criterion of 'having been continuously practicing as an Advocate for not less than seven years' as per Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules does not require an inquiry into the specific functi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of 'continuously practicing advocate for not less than 7 years' for selection to the Delhi Higher Judicial....
The requirement of continuous practice for seven years under Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules aligns with Article 233(2) of the Constitution, validating the rule's constitutiona....
An advocate ceases to practice when engaged in full-time employment, rendering them ineligible for judicial recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The eligibility criteria of seven years continuous practice as an advocate for appointment as a District Judge should be reckoned with reference to the last date for submitting the application, as pe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of continuous practice as an advocate immediately preceding the date of the application for appointment as a District Judge.
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
