Ms.Indira Banerjee, J.

This writ petition, by way of public interest, has been filed by an advocate practising in this Court challenging the appointment of the third respondent as Additional Judge of this Court and seeking a declaration that the appointment of the third respondent as Additional Judge of this Court with effect from 4.6.2018 is null and void.

2. At the very inception, the petitioner, appearing in person, has stated that he has no objection to the writ petition being taken up by this Bench presided by the Chief Justice, since the decision to recommend the third respondent for elevation as Judge was taken by a Collegium of which the present Chief Justice was not party and long before the present Chief Justice assumed office as a Judge of this Court.

3. The appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court are governed by Article 217 of the Constitution of India. Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India provides:

“Article 217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court.-

(1)...

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and-

(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or

(b) has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause

(a) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India, there shall be included any period, after he has held any judicial office, during which the person has been an advocate of a High Court or has held the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law;

(aa) in computing the period during which a person has been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period during which the person has held judicial office or the office of a member of a tribunal or any post, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law after he became an advocate;

(b) in computing the period during which a person has held judicial office in the territory of India or been an advocate of a High Court, there shall be included any period before the commencement of this Constitution during which he has held judicial office in any area which was comprised before the fifteenth day of August, 1947, within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, or has been an advocate of any High Court in any such area, as the case may be.”

4. In order to be eligible for appointment as a Judge of a High Court, a person, apart from being a citizen of India, is required to have held a judicial office in the territory of India for at least ten years or alternatively, have been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more of such Courts in succession for at least ten years. We need not go into the Explanations, as the Explanations are not attracted in the instant case, since the third respondent has been elevated from the bar.

5. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is a citizen of India. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is contended that the third respondent did not practise as an advocate either in this High Court (impleaded second respondent) or in any Subordinate Court or Tribunal within the jurisdiction of this Court for a minimum period of ten years and, therefore, not eligible. It is, however, not in dispute that the third respondent had been an advocate with practice far exceeding the requisite ten years required under Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. The entire challenge is on the purported ground that the third respondent has not practised in this High Court or in any court subordinate to this High Court, for at least ten years. The petitioner appearing in person submits that the expression an advocate of a High Court would have to be given an expanded interpretation after introduction of the Advocates Act,