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 per Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking a review of the order dated 16.12.2022, whereby the above-captioned petition was rejected on the ground that the issues raised are covered by the decision of this Court in Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) No.17131/2022 decided on 15.12.2022.

2. The petitioner, in the present case, was enrolled as an advocate in January, 2006. Subsequently, some time in December, 2014, she was selected as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Delhi government, on a contractual basis. The petitioner was selected through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of the Examiner of Trademarks (qualifying for the said post on account of two years of practice in law). She discharged her functions as the Examiner of Trademarks during the course of her employment in the said post from 07.08.2017 to 08.02.2019. During the period of her employment as Examiner of Trademarks with the Patent Office, her enrolment as an advocate, with the Bar Council of India was suspended.

3. The petitioner was held to be ineligible for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) pursuant to the DHJS Examination, 2022, on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria of seven years of continuous practice as an advocate, on the date preceding the last date of the application, as required in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (hereafter `the DHJS Rules').

4. The petitioner impugns Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules as ultra vires to Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. It is the petitioner's case that Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India posits an eligibility criteria of seven years continuous practice as an advocate; it does not provide that the seven years of continuous practice as an advocate period be reckoned with reference to the last date for submitting the application. Thus, according to the petitioner, if an advocate has practiced for seven years at any time in the past, she or he would be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge in terms of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. This is notwithstanding that she or he may have for several years prior to his application, not been enrolled as an advocate.

5. Undisputedly, the said issue was considered and decided by this Court in Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi & Ors. (supra). It is also material to note that the Special Leave to Appeal^1[ Special Leave Petiton (C) No(s).1377/2023, captioned Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi & Ors.^] preferred by the petitioner in that case was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 16.01.2023.

6. In view of the above, we find no grounds to review the order dated 16.12.2022.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner earnestly contended that the order dated 16.12.2022 is required to be reviewed as Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi & Ors. - on the basis of which the said order rejecting the above captioned petition was passed - had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor. v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, (2018) 4 SCC 619 and that the application seeking review of the said decision was pending before the Supreme Court. He also submitted that the Supreme Court has permitted the petitioner to file the present review petition on the ground that the review petition in the case of Dheeraj Mor. v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is pending consideration.

8. He also states that in the case of Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi & Ors. (supra), petitioner therein, had not practiced as an advocate for a continuous period of seven years. He had claimed that his cumulative period of practice as an advocate, although not continuous, aggregated seven years. And, that is sufficient to satisfy the eligibility criteria for being appointed as a District Judge under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.

9. We are not persuaded