ORDER

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma:

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the decision dated 12.01.2018 of the Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the revised select list/notification dated 22.03.2018 and the consequential memo dated 23.07.2018, whereby his appointment to the post of Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) through Direct Recruitment from Bar Examination, 2017 was kept in the reserved category, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings concerning the eligibility of in-service judicial officers in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi(2020) 7 SCC 401.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner obtained his LL.B. degree in 2003, enrolled as an Advocate with the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council on 03.08.2003 and practiced before the District and Sessions Court, Guna from 16.01.2004 till his appointment as Civil Judge Class-II in March, 2011. An amendment was introduced in the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 on 13.08.2015. Thereafter, pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2017 for direct recruitment from the Bar, the petitioner sought permission to resign from judicial service while retaining lien over his post and seniority for one year. Permission was granted on 13.04.2017 and his resignation was accepted on 27.06.2017. He subsequently participated in the examination and was included in the select list declared on 13.10.2017. However, the respondents subsequently questioned his eligibility in view of the judgments in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik(2013) 5 SCC 277 and Dheeraj Mor(supra). His representation was considered, but by the revised notification dated 22.03.2018 his appointment was kept in the reserved category, and by memo dated 23.07.2018 the same position was continued till the final decision in the proceedings relating to Dheeraj Mor (supra) in SPL(C) No. 14156/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already completed more than seven years' practice at the Bar before entering judicial service and, therefore, possessed the eligibility prescribed for direct recruitment from the Bar. It is contended that the 2015 amendment to the Rules specifically permitted an in-service Civil Judge, who had completed the requisite period of practice as an Advocate, to participate in the direct recruitment process after obtaining permission to resign, while retaining lien over his post and seniority. The petitioner acted in accordance with the amended Rules, obtained permission from the competent authority, tendered his resignation, was selected on merits and was thereafter denied appointment only because of the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that Deepak Aggarwal (supra) dealt with the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules and did not consider the specific amended Rules applicable in Madhya Pradesh. Reliance is also placed upon Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab 1961 AIR 816, contending that the constitutional requirement under Article 233(2) should not be interpreted so as to defeat the eligibility of a person who had already acquired the requisite experience as an Advocate before entering judicial service.

4. It is further submitted that the question is no longer res integra because the issue has attained finality and the review proceedings of Dheeraj Mor (supra) have been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and others Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020 by judgment dated 09.10.2025 in which the conclusion given by the Apex Court in para no. 172 is fully applicable to the present case. The petitioner accordingly contends that his eligibility had to be determined with reference to the aforesaid case and applicable Rules.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the