‘District judge postings only via promotion’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that subordinate judicial officers cannot apply or compete for direct appointment as District Judge even if they have a previous experience of seven years as an advocate.

The only opportunity available for them to be District Judges is through promotion in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 234 and proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, a three-judge Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra declared in an 83-page judgment.

Justice Mishra, who co-authored the main judgment with Justice Vineet Saran, was interpreting Article 233 of the Constitution. Direct appointment under Article 233 is only available to advocates or pleaders with seven years of legal practice. The Article expressly bars candidates in service of either the Union or the State.

“Members of judicial service having seven years experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of seven years as both a lawyer and judicial officer are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge,” Justice Mishra held.

The court held that prohibition on judicial officers staking a claim to District Judgeship through direct recruitment under Article 233(2) is not ultra vires nor a violation of their fundamental rights to equality and equal opportunities in public employment.

The judgment noted that judicial officers directly appointed under Article 233 cannot continue as District Judges. They would be reverted to their original posts and the respective High Courts would consider their promotion in accordance with the prevailing Rules in case they were superseded by their juniors.

The main judgment was concurred by the third member of the Bench, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, in a separate opinion. “The Constitution makers consciously wished that members of the Bar should be considered for appointment at all three levels, i.e. as District judges, High Courts and the Supreme Court. This was because counsel practising in the law courts have a direct link with the people who need their services; their views about the functioning of the courts, is a constant dynamic… they inject the judicial branch with fresh perspectives,” Justice Bhat explained.

The court held that an advocate, to be eligible under Article 233, has to be continuing in practice for seven years as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge.