Enrollment as an Advocate and continued practice as a Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor does not disqualify an individual from being considered for appointment as District Judge.

A.K. Patnaik, C.J.

1. The question which arises for decision in this writ petition is whether a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor who has been an Advocate for not less than seven years is eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in the M.P. Higher Judicial Service.

2. The relevant facts briefly are that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to twenty posts of District Judges (Entry Level) in the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar. The advertisement stipulated, inter alia, that to be eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment, the candidate must have practiced as an Advocate or Pleader for not less than seven years as on the 1st day of January, 2006. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner who was enrolled as an Advocate in the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 10-3-1992 and had practiced at Dewas as an Advocate till 12-8-2004 and then joined as Assistant Public Prosecutor at Dewas on 13-8-2004 and had continued as Assistant Public Prosecutor, applied. The application of the petitioner was however rejected by the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the ground that she was no longer an Advocate or Pleader being a full-time salaried employee of the Government and she was not eligible for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the M.P. Higher Judicial Service as per the eligibility criteria stipulated in the advertisement.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for writs/directions/orders quashing the communication dated 24-11-2006 of the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and directing the respondents to accept her application and to permit her to appear in the examination scheduled to be held on 17-12-2006. On 6-12-2006, the Court while issuing notice in the writ petition to the respondent Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an interim order that the petitioner be allowed to take the recruitment examination scheduled to be held on 17-12-2006 after complying with the formalities but the results of the petitioner will not be declared until further orders.

4. Thereafter on 29-3-2007, the Court modified the interim order and directed that in case the petitioner has qualified in the written examination, she will be called for interview but the final results will not be published until further orders. On 29-3-2007, the Court also passed orders directing that the State Government, represented by the Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Home, Bhopal will be impleaded as a respondent and further directing that the State Government in the Home Department will file an affidavit stating the nature of duties performed by Public Prosecutors/ Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant District Public Prosecutors appointed under the M.P. Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services Rules, 1991.

5. Pursuant to the stay order dated 29-3-2007, an affidavit has been filed in W.P. No. 18678 of 2006 (S) stating therein that Public Prosecutors, Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant District Public Prosecutors are appointed under Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") and they perform the duties in accordance with the said provisions of the Cr.P.C. besides other duties detailed in the order dated 25-1-1994 of the Director of Public Prosecution. A copy of the order dated 25-1-1994 has also been annexed to the affidavit and it appears from the copy of the order dated 25-1-1994 that Public Prosecutors, Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant District Public Prosecutors have to appear in different Criminal Courts and conduct cases on behalf of the State. Therefore, the question which fa