Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Government Lawyers, Allows Provisional Entry to Chhattisgarh Judicial Exam

New Delhi - In a significant last-minute intervention, the Supreme Court of India on Friday passed an interim order permitting Public Prosecutors, Government Advocates, and other government servants to provisionally appear for the Chhattisgarh Judicial Service Preliminary Examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), scheduled for Sunday. The order temporarily sets aside a contentious rule that rendered these candidates ineligible because their bar enrollment was suspended due to their government service.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria provided the crucial relief while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by aggrieved candidates. The Court directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) to issue admit cards and allow the petitioners to sit for the exam, clarifying that this provisional arrangement would not create any special rights or "equities" in their favor pending the final outcome of the case.

"As an interim order, we direct that the CGPSC shall permit such of the petitioners who are possessing the requisite qualification except the one provided under Clause 3(iv)(e), i.e enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act 1961," the bench directed, addressing the core issue that had barred the petitioners.

The Court also instructed the CGPSC not to insist on the three-year practice requirement for this specific examination, as the recruitment notification predated the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (the 'AIJA judgment'), which established this new eligibility benchmark.

The Crux of the Conflict: A Catch-22 for Government Advocates

The legal battle stemmed from an amendment to the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. A gazette notification dated July 5, 2024, substituted Rule 7(1)(c), mandating that applicants for the Civil Judge post must be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, as of the date of the recruitment advertisement.

This created a classic Catch-22 for candidates serving as Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) and Government Advocates. Service rules for these positions require them to suspend their license to practice (i.e., their bar enrollment) upon appointment. Consequently, when the CGPSC issued its recruitment notification on December 23, 2024, these government lawyers were technically not "enrolled as an Advocate," making them ineligible to apply despite their extensive legal and courtroom experience.

When the CGPSC refused to issue them admit cards, the candidates challenged the rule's validity before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court initially provided interim relief on January 22, 2025, finding the mandatory bar enrollment requirement potentially restrictive and ordering the Commission to allow non-enrolled candidates to submit online forms.

However, the legal landscape shifted. The examination, originally set for May 18, 2025, was deferred pending the Supreme Court's verdict in the AIJA case. After the AIJA judgment was delivered on May 20, 2025, the CGPSC rescheduled the preliminary exam for September 21, 2025. In a reversal of fortunes for the petitioners, the Commission then decided to issue admit cards only to those who met the enrollment criteria as of the original advertisement date.

Aggrieved by this, the candidates returned to the High Court, which, on September 16, dismissed their petitions. The High Court found the PSC's action was not arbitrary, observing that the candidates' enrollment was suspended at the time the recruitment advertisement was issued. This left the Supreme Court as their final recourse, just days before the examination.

Supreme Court's Intervention: Balancing Rules and Opportunities

During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench appeared to focus on the practical dilemma faced by the petitioners. The CJI orally questioned whether candidates working as prosecutors and government advocates could be treated on par with law graduates who had never enrolled at the bar at all, signaling a recognition of their unique professional status.

The petitioners' primary contention, as highlighted in the source documents, was that the AIJA judgment itself provided a pathway for their inclusion. They argued that the ruling intended for all recruitment processes already underway to proceed under the rules applicable on the date of the advertisement. Since the High Court had already provided an interim order allowing non-enrolled candidates to apply before the AIJA judgment, they contended this should be the governing condition.

By allowing them to sit for the exam, the Supreme Court has temporarily resolved the immediate crisis without making a definitive ruling on the validity of the amended Chhattisgarh service rule. The Court's order meticulously balances the administrative needs of the CGPSC with the career aspirations of experienced legal professionals in government service. The explicit clarification that "the appearance of the petitioners in the examinations will not create any equities in their favour" ensures that the final legal determination on the rule's validity will not be prejudiced by this interim measure.

The case, titled URWASHI KOUR AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH , will now proceed for a more detailed hearing. The final judgment will be eagerly awaited, as it could have far-reaching implications for the eligibility of thousands of government lawyers across the country who aspire to join the judicial services but are caught between conflicting service and recruitment rules.