Supreme Court Refers Issue Regarding Eligibility For Appointment As District Judge By Way Of Direct Recruitment To Constitution Bench
The Supreme Court was considering a batch of petitions seeking a declaration that judicial officers who have an experience of seven years at the Bar before their joining as judicial officers would be entitled to be appointed as district judges via direct recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N. V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has referred the issue regarding the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge by way of direct recruitment to the Constitution Bench. The Apex Court also explained that in view of the question involving the interpretation of Article 233(2), the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of five Judges.
The Apex Court was considering a batch of petitions seeking review of the judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (JUR) whereby it was held that the members of the judicial service of a State could be appointed as district judges either by way of promotion or the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). It was further held that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, an advocate or pleader with 7 years of practice could be appointed as district judge by way of direct recruitment, in case he is not already in the judicial service of the Union or a State. It was also held that the rules framed by the High Court debarring judicial officers from staking their claim as against the posts reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar would not be ultra vires to the Constitution.
Many writ petitions as well as special leave petitions were also filed praying for a declaration that even those judicial officers who have an experience of seven years at the Bar before their joining as judicial officers would be entitled to be appointed as district judges via direct recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Of India B.R.Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria stated, “It can thus be seen that Article 145(3) of the Constitution provides that the minimum number of Judges, for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any Reference under Article 143 shall be five.”
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the position as emanated from Article 145(3), as also of the fact that the issues involved required interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, the Court had directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India in which subsequently JUR was pronounced.
“Ordinarily, in view of the question involving interpretation of Article 233(2), the matter ought to have been placed before a Bench of five learned Judges. However, it appears that the same was placed before the Bench of three learned Judges and the JUR was delivered”, it held.
As per the Bench, the issues involved in the batch of petitions ought to have been decided by a Constitution Bench of not less than five Judges. The Bench thus came to the conclusion that the following two issues are substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution:
(i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?
(ii) Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both?
Thus, referring the aforesaid issues for consideration by a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Court, the Bench directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders.
Cause Title: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 965)