Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Plea Of Public Prosecutors Challenging Disqualification From Judiciary Exam Due To Non-Enrollment As Advocates
The Chhattisgarh High Court said that the experience of various High Courts had shown that fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the Petitions filed by Public Prosecutors, Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs), Prosecution Officers, etc., challenging their disqualification from the judiciary exam due to non-enrollment as Advocates.
The Petitioners sought appropriate direction against the authorities to either strike down Clause (3)(iv)(b) of the advertisement or suitably amend the same to allow them to participate in the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in accordance with the law.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and the administration of justice. This was possible only when a candidate was exposed to the atmosphere in the Court by assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the Judges function in the court. The candidate should be equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions of a Judge.”
The Bench added that the experience of various High Courts had also shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament problems.
Advocates Goutam Khetrapal and Mehul Kumar Garg appeared for the Petitioners while Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Shashank Thakur, Advocates Gary Mukhopadhyay, and Anurag Dayal Shrivastava appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
In the lead case, Petitioners were serving as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Manipur and Public Prosecutor in the Government of Chhattisgarh, respectively. Other Petitioners were law graduates and government employees in legal capacities. According to the Petitioners, they were eligible to apply for and participate in the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) conducted by Respondent-CGPSC (Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission).
The said recruitment is governed by the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The Petitioners had applied pursuant to the recruitment notification and fulfilled all eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2006 Rules, including those introduced through the recent amendments duly notified by the competent authority. As per them, they were unable to access or download their admit cards pursuant to the notification and the subsequent order published on the official website of the CGPSC.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “In the case in hand, the advertisement for recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was issued on 23.12.2024 and the rule/ eligibility criteria prevailing at that point of time was that the candidate should possess degree in law of any recognized University and should also be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. This fact has not been disputed by either of the parties as the notification was issued on 05.07.2024 to this effect by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh before issuance of the advertisement on 23.12.2024.”
The Court noted that the notification was merely a notification to the effect notifying the total number of vacancies and it was not the notification/advertisement for recruitment on the post as a notification for recruitment not only specifies the number of vacancies, it also specifies eligibility criteria, pay scales, reservation conditions, mode of examination, manner in which the forms have to be filled up, which all was not available in the notification.
“The recruitment notification/advertisement was issued only on 23.12.2024 by which time the notification dated 05.07.2024 was already in existence. The petitioners cannot interpret the observations made by the Apex Court as per their convenience so as to be made applicable to the facts of their case. It would amount to overreaching the decision of the Apex Court”, it remarked.
The Court also added that the requirement of being enrolled as an Advocate has been done away, cannot withstand and as such, there is no illegality or irregularity with the notification.
“A bald plea of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been taken by the petitioners which is without any foundation. A legislative provision prescribing qualifications for public employment cannot be struck down merely because a group of aspirants feels aggrieved. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any lack of legislative competence, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional guarantees. What is urged is nothing more than a disagreement with policy, which is impermissible grounds for judicial interference”, it further observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Petitions amount to an abuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court, proceed on misplaced assumptions, misinterpretation of precedent, and an attempt to secure a backdoor entry into judicial service by inviting the Court to rewrite the statutory rules—something which is impermissible in law.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all the Petitions.
Cause Title- Himalaya Ravi & Anr. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:47405-DB)
