Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ANANDA SEN, JJ.
Dilip Kumar, Son of Late. Shivnath Mahto - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary to Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3484 of 2023
Decided On : 28-11-2023
Ultra Vires - Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service - Article 233(2), Article 14 - Rules 2001 - [Article 233(2), Article 14, Rules 2001]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a discharged employee of the Armed Forces and a practicing advocate, challenged the eligibility criteria for the recruitment and appointment of Additional District Judges under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001. He claimed that his experience as a 'Defence-Pleader' should be considered as practice to fulfill the requisite criteria for the post of District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim of having 7 years of practice as a pleader was unfounded as the Advocates Act, 1961 only recognizes advocates as legal practitioners. The court referred to a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the 25% advocate's recruitment quota is reserved only for advocates with 7 years of practice. The court held that the petitioner did not meet the requisite qualifications and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Article 233(2) and the eligibility criteria for the recruitment and appointment of District Judges under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Advocates Act, 1961 recognizes only advocates as legal practitioners and does not provide for the concept of a 'Pleader.' It also highlighted the Supreme Court's ruling that the 25% advocate's recruitment quota is reserved only for advocates with 7 years of practice, emphasizing the need for applicants to be practicing advocates at the time of application and appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim of having 7 years of practice as a pleader was unfounded, and he did not meet the requisite qualifications. The petition was deemed speculative and dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
(S.K. Mishra, J.)
1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, a discharged employee of the Armed Forces, at present having an advocate’s license and allegedly practicing in this Court, has prayed for declaring the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, as ultra vires to Article 233(2) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India for not allowing the (so called) “Pleaders” to exercise their rights to apply for the recruitment and appointment to the post of Additional District Judge. He has also prayed to declare the Court’s permission to the petitioner, to act as a “Defence-Pleader” in Ramgarh Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2007 under Sections 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from 09.09.2014 to 17.04.2022, a total period of 07 years, 07 months and few days to be considered and counted as a practice of a “Pleader” for the purpose of being eligible to fulfill the requisite criteria of having specific experience or practice as a “Pleader” for the recruitment and appointment to the District Judiciary. The petitioner after his discharge from the Defence Services enrolled himself as an advocate having enrollment No.JH447/2022 dated 18.04.2022. He has obtained a degree in law from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag prior to that. Thereafter, he also qualified in the All India Bar Examination-XVII and received a certificate of practice from the Bar Council of India. He, therefore, claims that he has more than 7 years experience as a pleader and has become eligible under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India to apply for the post of selection and appointment as a District Judge. So, the grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the Rules of 2001 formulated under Article 233 read with 309 of the Constitution of India allows only the advocates to apply for the aforesaid post and disallows the pleaders to apply for the aforesaid post. Hence, he has filed this writ application.
2. Article 233 of the Constitution provides for appointment of District Judges, which reads as follows:
(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court of appointment.”
3. The provisions to which the petitioner assails are the eligibility criteria as provided under Rule 9 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Rules, which reads as follows:-
SELECTION OF DIRECT RECRUITS
9. Eligibility: A Candidate shall be eligible to be appointed as an Additional District Judge under these Rules, if:
(a) he is above the age of 35 years and below the age of 45 years as on the last day of January preceding the year in which the examination is held; provided that in the case of a candidate belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, there may be a relaxation of upper age limit by three years;
(b) is a graduate in law from a University recognized for the purpose of enrollment as an Advocate under the Advocates’ Act, 1961.
(c) has an experience of more than seven years at the Bar as a practicing Advocate after having been duly enrolled as such under the Advocates: Act, 1961.
(d) possesses good health, is of sound moral character and is not involved in, or related to any criminal case of any type involving moral turpitude.”
4. The petitioner claims that he is a law graduate which he obtained in the year 2022, but prior to that, in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribag, the learned Judge while trying S.T. No. 132 of 2007 disposed on an application dated 26.08.2014 which was moved on behalf of the accused person Satyadeo Ram Dangi in the aforesaid case praying therein to appear
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 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 constitutiona....
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....
Point of law : Article 309 of the Constitution of India deals with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. The Article 309 provides the competence for the G....
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....
The prescription of the age of 35 years as eligibility for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) by Direct Recruitment was held to be valid and not in violation of the Constitution of India....
Continuous practice as an advocate for not less than seven years is a prerequisite for appointment as a President of the District Commission, as per Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and Ru....
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
