[District Judge recruitment] Seven years continuous practice as advocate must immediately precede application: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently ruled that in order to apply for recruitment to the post of District Judge from the bar, an advocate must have seven years of continuous practice immediately preceding the application [Trupti Mayee Patra v Registrar, Examination, Orissa High Court, Cuttack].A Division Bench of Justices D Dash and G Satapathy applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal v Kandeshav Kaushik and Ors and Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi to arrive at the conclusion.."Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court Deepak Aggarwal and Dheeraj Mor (supra) to the case at hand and the petitioner having not found experience of continuous practice as an advocate for seven years, it can safely be said that the Petitioner is not eligible to appear in the examination," the Court said..The Court was hearing a writ petition by one Trupti Mayee Patra seeking a direction to the Registrar (Examination) of Orissa High Court to include her name in the list of eligible candidates for the 2023 recruitment examination to the post in the cadre of District Judge from the bar by issuing a fresh list.The petitioner practiced as a lawyer between the years 2004 and 2014. She surrendered her license in 2016 after being selected as a Junior Clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge in Malkangiri. Thereafter, in 2018, she was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor.She appeared for the District Judge recruitment exam unsuccessfully in 2020, 2021 and 2022. However, in 2023 she was found ineligible to appear. Aggrieved, she moved the High Court..For the Registrar, Additional Standing Counsel SN Das informed the Court that the petitioner was not eligible for the exam for want of seven years of continuous bar practice. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Aggarwal..On the other hand, advocate Subhasis Das for the petitioner argued that the petitioner could not be denied candidature after being allowed to appear for the exam three times in the past. .On considering submissions from both sides, the Court noted that the petitioner clearly did not have seven years of practice just preceding the date of her application for the examination.Based on the apex court's decision in the cases of Deepak Aggarwal and Dheeraj Mor, the Court noted that seven years of practice has to immediately precede the application for the examination. Further, it observed that the petitioner being allowed to appear three times previously conferred no right upon her to be allowed to appear for the examination again..The Court highlighted that the advertisement for the examination explicitly stated that candidates must possess seven years of continuous practice as an advocate as of April 1, 2023. Based on this criterion, the Court deemed the petitioner ineligible. Hence, the Court ruled that there was no reason for intervention and rejected the writ petition..[Read Order]