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 functions performed by an advocate. Pursuing a Master of Law Program does not constitute a break in practice as per the Bar Council of India's Resolution No.160/2009.

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 of the order dated 17.03.2023 passed in his petition - Ashish Rastogi v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi & Anr., WP(C) No. 15705/2022 decided on 17.03.2023 - he is now required to be placed at serial no.17 in the order of merit in the select list.

4. It is also relevant to note that the candidate placed at serial no.5 in the select list (Sh. Murari Singh) has since withdrawn his candidature.

5. In view of the above, the petitioner stands at serial no.35 in the order of merit in the select list and seeks directions for his appointment in the DHJS. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner seeks to challenge the selection of respondent nos. 3 to 5. The petitioner's challenge to selection of respondent no.3 is premised on the ground that respondent no.3 had not qualified the DHJS Mains (Written) Examination as his marks in Law Paper-III were one mark less than the qualifying threshold; respondent no. 3 was declared qualified by virtue of the notice dated 13.10.2022, whereby additional 0.5 in the paper of General Knowledge & Language and one mark in the paper of Law-III were awarded to all candidates who appeared in the DHJS Mains (Written) Examination. The petitioner impugns the said notice dated 13.10.2022 awarding additional marks as being illegal and contrary to the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules, 1970 (hereafter 'the DHJS Rules'). The petitioner assails the selection of respondent nos.3 and 4 on the ground that they do not satisfy the eligibility criteria of seven years of continuous practice as on the last date of receipt of application. According to the petitioner, respondent no.4 was ineligible to apply as he was engaged as a legal consultant on contractual basis with the Department of Legal Affairs during the period 06.03.2017 to 12.09.2019. The eligibility of respondent no.5 is questioned on the ground that he had pursued a full time Master of Law Program at the University College London (UCL) during the period September, 2015 to June, 2016. Thus, the continuous period of practice for respondent no.5 was required to be reckoned from June, 2016.

6. It is apparent from the above that the petitioner would be entitled to being included in the list of candidates only if he prevails in his challenge to the appointment of all three contesting respondents (respondent nos.3 to 5). On 29.03.2023, we had heard the counsel for the parties on the question as to the eligibility of respondent no.5. The learned counsel for the parties had submitted that it would not be necessary to consider the petitioner's challenge to the other respondents in the event the petitioner did not prevail in its challenge to the selection of respondent no.5.

THE CONTROVERSY

7. Thus, the only question that this Court proposes to address at this stage is whether respondent no.