JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules, 1970 (hereafter `the Rules') as amended on 08.02.2022. The petitioner claims that the said rule is ultra vires Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner claims that he had practiced as an advocate cumulatively for a period of 7 years and 2 months as on 12.03.2022 - the last date to apply for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2022 (hereafter `the DHJSE, 2022'). He claims that, as such, he qualifies the eligibility criteria under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. However, Rule 9(2) of the Rules requires an applicant to be in continuous practice of at least 7 years as on the date of the application for being eligible for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services. According to the petitioner, the same falls foul of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India as the same does not expressly require a candidate to be in continuous practice of at least 7 years to be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge.

Factual Context

3. The petitioner was enroll