Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SHUBHA MEHTA
Vimla Kumari Malav – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on admission.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that rejection of petitioner's candidature in the matter of recruitment to Higher Judicial Services on the ground that petitioner has not been an Advocate for a period of not less than 7 years as on the last date of submission of application form as envisaged in Rule 33 (iii) of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2010") is illegal and based on misconstruction of the relevant Rule. It is argued that the petitioner was registered with the Bar Council of Rajasthan w.e.f. 27.08.2005. Pursuant to advertisement issued for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2013, the petitioner applied for the same as she was eligible. She was selected and appointed in service vide order dated 21.05.2015 and was also sent for training as required under the Rules, however, her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2017. As the petitioner could not succeed, she again applied for resumption of her license which was resumed vide notice dated 28.05.2019 w.e.f. 28.05.2019. Pursuant to advertisement dated 05.01.2021 for recruitment to the post of District Judge Cadre, 2
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility criteria for appointment as a District Judge, requiring an Advocate to be in practice for not less than 7 years, must be st....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of continuous practice as an advocate immediately preceding the date of the application for appointment as a District Judge.
The main legal point established is the interpretation of eligibility criteria for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under Article 233 of the Constitution of India and relevant rules, emphasiz....
An advocate ceases to practice when engaged in full-time employment, rendering them ineligible for judicial recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
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 pe....
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 functi....
In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the ju....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of 'continuously practicing advocate for not less than 7 years' for selection to the Delhi Higher Judicial....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
