SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Abdul Aleem - Petitioner
Versus
High Court Of Delhi And Ors - Respondents
W.P.(C) 10209 of 2024 & CM APPL. 41920 of 2024
Decided on : 04-08-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Santosh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Dr. Amit George. Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Ms. Rupam Jha, Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Ms. Ibansara, Mr. Kartikey Sharma, Mr. Man Mohan Goel, Ms. Kiran Saini and Ms. Kusum Saini,
Advs., Ms. Alpana Pandey, Adv.

The eligibility for appointment as Special Metropolitan Magistrate includes both serving and retired Group-A officers with relevant experience, clarifying any misconceptions derived from the application process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 18(1) - Delhi Petty Offences (Trial by Special Metropolitan Magistrate) Rules, 1998 - Rule 3 & 4 - Appointment of Special Metropolitan Magistrate - The eligibility criteria allow both serving and retired Group-A officers who meet the experience requirements to apply for SMM post. Petitioner contended that only retirees were eligible; however, the court clarified that the advertisement and rules did not restrict eligibility to retirees exclusively. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Precedence of Statutory Rules - Any contradiction between an advertisement and statutory rules cannot create erroneous rights; statutory provisions prevail. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having retired from a Group A post, contested the selection of respondents who were still in service as Special Metropolitan Magistrates, arguing that the post was only for retirees.

Findings of Court:
The court found that both serving and retired individuals with requisite experience were eligible, dismissing the petitioner's claims.

Issues: Whether the appointment of serving officers violated the eligibility requirements prescribed by the advertisement and rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression "has held" in the rules encompasses both serving and retired officers, thereby permitting both categories to apply.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria for smm clarified (Para 1 , 2)
2. disqualification rules examined (Para 3 , 4)
3. vacancies and eligibility of candidates analyzed (Para 5 , 6)
4. petitioner's arguments on smm eligibility (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 15)
5. court's interpretation of rules and application process (Para 19 , 20 , 22)
6. petition dismissed, eligibility upheld (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Vide advertisement dated 25 August 2023, this Court called for online applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Special Metropolitan Magistrate, [“SMM” hereinafter] under Section 18(1), [18. Special Metropolitan Magistrates. –

(1) The High Court may, if requested by the Central or State Government so to do, confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government, all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under this Code on a Metropolitan Magistrate, in respect to particular cases or to particular classes of cases, in any metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction: Provided that no such power shall be conferred on a person unless he possesses such qualification or experience in relation to legal affairs as the High Court may, by rules, specify.] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr PC” hereinafter]. The qualifications required to be possessed by an aspirant to sought to apply under the advertisement for the post of SMM, as contained in Rule 3 of the Delhi Petty Offence (Trial by Special Metropolitan Magistrate) Rules, 1998, [“the 1998 Rules” hereinafter] were bodily incorporated into the advertisement, the second paragraph of which read thus:

“A candidate must possess the qualification as prescribed in Rule 3 of Delhi Petty Offences (Trial by Special Metropolitan Magistrate) Rules, 1998 which reads as under:-

“3. Qualification:- A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Special Metropolitan Magistrate unless he/she is a law graduate and:-

(1) has been a District Magistrate or a Judicial Officer; or

(2) has for a period of not less than one year exercised the powers of Sub Divisional Magistrate; or

(3) has for a period of not less than two years exercised the powers of an Executive Magistrate: or

(4) has held for a period of not less than five years a Group ’A’ post on the Establishment of the High Court of Delhi or that of the Courts Subordinate thereto; or

(5) has held, for a period of not less than five years, a Group ’A’ post under the department of the Government of NCT of Delhi or the Central Government or State Government (Preference will be given to those persons who have been dealing with legal affairs or have been working in the department dealing with legal affairs); and

(6) has not attained the age of 65 years on the date of conferment of power of Special Metropolitan Magistrate on him/her.

Explanation – For the purpose of these rules a "law graduate" is a person who is eligible to be enrolled as an advocate.”

Thus, Rule 3(5) of the 1998 Rules specifically entitled any law graduate who “has held, for a period of not less than five years, a Group ’A’ post under the department of the Government of NCT of Delhi or the Central Government or State Government” to apply for the post of SMM. The expression “has held” is in the present perfect tense. All that it required was that, on 23 September 2023, which was the cut-off date stipulated in the advertisement, the candidate must have had, to his credit, 5 years’ experience in a Group A post in the Central or State Government. The experience could be in the past, or in praesenti. The Clause covered all candidates with 5 years’ Group A experience to their credit, irrespective of whether, on the cut off date, they were still holding the post, or had already retired.

2. Section 18(1) of the Cr PC supports this interpretation. The High Court is empowered, under the said sub-section, to confer all or any of the powers conferred by the Cr PC on a Metropolitan Magistrate, “upon any person who holds or has held any po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top