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 constitutionality.

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 enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana on 24.07.2012 (License no. P/963/2012). He claims that he joined active practice as an advocate at the District and Sessions Court, Ambala and also became a member of the District Bar Association, Ambala, Haryana. In the year 2015, he appeared for the District Legal Aid Officer Exam, 2014 conducted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and was ranked on top of the list of successful candidates who had appeared for the said examination. He joined the services on 09.03.2015 as the District Legal Aid Officer, Morena, Madhya Pradesh. In the same year, he appeared for Civil Judge, Class-II Examination, 2015 conducted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He was successful and selected as a Civil Judge, Class-II.

4. The petitioner claims that he resigned from the services as the District Legal Aid Officer on 28.07.2015 after serving four months and twenty days. And, immediately resumed his practice at the Bar, Ambala, Haryana. The petitioner claims that, thereafter, he joined as judicial officer, Civil Judge, Class-II on 11.04.2016 and served the said post for a period of two years and one month.

5. He served one month's prior notice of his resignation to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 11.04.2018. His resignation was accepted and he was relieved from state judicial services of Madhya Pradesh on 10.05.2018.

6. The petitioner claims that immediately on his being relieved, he joined active practice as an advocate at Ambala, Haryana as well as at the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

7. On 23.02.2022, the establishment of this Court invited online applications from eligible candidates for filling up 45 (forty-five) vacancies by way of a direct recruitment in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services. The selection process entailed three stages: the preliminary examination, the main (written) examination, and viva voce. The last date for filing the online application was fixed as 12.03.2022.

8. The preliminary examination for the DHJSE, 2022 was held on 04.04.2022 and the results of the examination were declared on 22.04.2022. Since, the petitioner had secured 89.75 marks out of maximum of 151