Advocates don't need ‘continuous’ 7 years' practice to become district judge: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday ruled that an advocate does not require to have a continuous experience of seven years to be eligible for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge [Sandeep Sharma v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya ruled that Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 only requires the advocate to have a minimum seven years experience on the last date fixed for receipt of the applications.“There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post,” the Court said..It added that Article 233(2) of the Constitution - which provides for appointment of advocates as district judges - “does not support the view” that the candidate’s seven-year experience must be continuous.Further, the Bench disagreed with a Delhi High Court decision which held that the experience must be continuous. It also distinguished the decisions of other High Courts..The Court passed the ruling while hearing a petitioner’s challenge against the selection of another candidate, who had got the same marks as him in the written examination.The petitioner Sandeep Sharma’s main ground was that Advocate Parveen Garg could not have been appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge last year, as before applying for the post, he was not in continuous practice for seven years. It was submitted that Garg had a break in practice as advocate in view of his employment as District Legal Officer and Civil Judge-II in Madhya Pradesh.The Court was also told that Garg had previously applied for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, but was disqualified for not having continuous practice of seven years. He had challenged the same before the Delhi High Court and was unsuccessful.It was also argued that the “Note” below Clause (c) in Rule 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, which permits the period during which an advocate had also held judicial office to be computed towards his experience, is contrary to a decision of the Supreme Court..Having concluded that there was no requirement of continuous seven years practice to be eligible for appointment, the Court noted that Garg was in active practice from 2012 to 2015 and then from 2018 to 2022 as well. “He thus possesses cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice. Thus he is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge as per Rule 5 (c),” it ruled.However, the Court agreed that the Supreme Court had held that experience obtained in judicial service cannot be counted towards the requisite experience of advocacy.“To the extent the Note under clause (c) of Rule 5 counted the period spent on judicial service by a candidate towards the 7 year periods of service as Advocate is clearly contrary to the para 45 of Dheeraj Mor…where the Supreme Court held that ‘....For constituting experience of 7 years of practice as Advocate, experience obtained in judicial service cannot be equated/combined,” it said.The Court thus quashed the Note, but upheld the appointment of Garg as Additional District Judge..Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan and Advocate Sohail Khan represented the petitioner.Senior Advocate JL Bhardwaj with Advocate Komal Chaudhary represented the High Court.Deputy Advocate General Arsh Rattan represented the State.Advocates Prateek Gupta, Praveen Chandel and Ashwani Sharma represented the respondent. .[Read Judgment]