A fresh question relating to Article 233 and appointment of District judges has come up before the Supreme Court..The issue is whether “in computing the period of seven years” required under Article 233 of Constitution for appointment as District judge, the period during which a candidate has held judicial office can be included..The matter was heard today by a Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer which directed the Registry to place the case before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders..This was in the light of certain other matters relating to Article 233 which are already pending before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for the petitioners today along with advocates Ajay Pal and PP Nayak..Article 233(2).It prescribes the qualification for appointment as District Judge and states the following:.“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 for appointment.”.Petitioners’ case.Article 233 prescribes that a person should have practised as a lawyer for seven years to be eligible for appointment as District Judge.The petitioners in the instant case are judges of the lower judiciary in Rajasthan. They had practised at the Bar for over 6 years before opting to join the lower judiciary. Their contention is that in computing the time period of 7 years, the time spent as judge in the lower judiciary should also be included..To that extent, they have challenged Rules 31(3) and 33(iii) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 as ultra vires the Constitution of India..The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the Rules framed by Gujarat and certain other States in this regard. According to the same, “in computing the period of seven years there shall be included a period during which he (a candidate) has held judicial office”..Ajit Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out two other cases which are already pending before the Supreme Court regarding Article 233..In those cases, the court had extended interim relief to the petitioners by allowing them to appear for the Higher Judicial Service Examination with their recruitment being subject to the eventual outcome of the case..Order today.The Court in its order noted the submissions made by Ajit Kumar Sinha..“Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the above interim orders, the present writ petition is required to be examined and similar interim order is required to be passed in this matter. .We find it extremely difficult to accept the submission though we are not very sure as to what exactly the prayer was in the above mentioned two writ petitions.”.The Court also said in its order that the prayer made by the petitioners is inconsistent with Article 233..“We do not doubt the correctness of the statement made by learned senior counsel at the Bar, assuming the facts to be so, we are of the opinion that such a prayer in the above mentioned writ petitions would be plainly inconsistent with the context of Article 233 of the Constitution. No doubt the State of Gujarat seems to have framed such rule. The validity of the said rule has not been tested so far.”.The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders..“In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate further orders as in our opinion, if the issue is not settled at an early date, it would only result in proliferation of number of litigation, more particularly, in the context of the Higher Judicial Service in the various States in this Country..Registry is therefore directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India today itself.”.Certain other cases are already pending before the Supreme Court regarding Article 233. Those case are considering an important question of law – whether Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India debars persons already in judicial service for appointment as district judges by way of direct recruitment and not promotion..In other words, whether persons in judicial service can be directly appointed as District judges based on his/her experience at the Bar and without having to go through ‘promotions through the rank’..Read today’s order below.
A fresh question relating to Article 233 and appointment of District judges has come up before the Supreme Court..The issue is whether “in computing the period of seven years” required under Article 233 of Constitution for appointment as District judge, the period during which a candidate has held judicial office can be included..The matter was heard today by a Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer which directed the Registry to place the case before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders..This was in the light of certain other matters relating to Article 233 which are already pending before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for the petitioners today along with advocates Ajay Pal and PP Nayak..Article 233(2).It prescribes the qualification for appointment as District Judge and states the following:.“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 for appointment.”.Petitioners’ case.Article 233 prescribes that a person should have practised as a lawyer for seven years to be eligible for appointment as District Judge.The petitioners in the instant case are judges of the lower judiciary in Rajasthan. They had practised at the Bar for over 6 years before opting to join the lower judiciary. Their contention is that in computing the time period of 7 years, the time spent as judge in the lower judiciary should also be included..To that extent, they have challenged Rules 31(3) and 33(iii) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 as ultra vires the Constitution of India..The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the Rules framed by Gujarat and certain other States in this regard. According to the same, “in computing the period of seven years there shall be included a period during which he (a candidate) has held judicial office”..Ajit Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out two other cases which are already pending before the Supreme Court regarding Article 233..In those cases, the court had extended interim relief to the petitioners by allowing them to appear for the Higher Judicial Service Examination with their recruitment being subject to the eventual outcome of the case..Order today.The Court in its order noted the submissions made by Ajit Kumar Sinha..“Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the above interim orders, the present writ petition is required to be examined and similar interim order is required to be passed in this matter. .We find it extremely difficult to accept the submission though we are not very sure as to what exactly the prayer was in the above mentioned two writ petitions.”.The Court also said in its order that the prayer made by the petitioners is inconsistent with Article 233..“We do not doubt the correctness of the statement made by learned senior counsel at the Bar, assuming the facts to be so, we are of the opinion that such a prayer in the above mentioned writ petitions would be plainly inconsistent with the context of Article 233 of the Constitution. No doubt the State of Gujarat seems to have framed such rule. The validity of the said rule has not been tested so far.”.The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders..“In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate further orders as in our opinion, if the issue is not settled at an early date, it would only result in proliferation of number of litigation, more particularly, in the context of the Higher Judicial Service in the various States in this Country..Registry is therefore directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India today itself.”.Certain other cases are already pending before the Supreme Court regarding Article 233. Those case are considering an important question of law – whether Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India debars persons already in judicial service for appointment as district judges by way of direct recruitment and not promotion..In other words, whether persons in judicial service can be directly appointed as District judges based on his/her experience at the Bar and without having to go through ‘promotions through the rank’..Read today’s order below.
