📜 REJANISH K.V. v. K. DEEPA [2025 INSC 1208]

J U D G M E N T

1. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in this batch of matters, vide order dated 12th August 2025, had referred the following substantial questions of law for consideration of a Constitution Bench:

(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?

2. When this batch of matters was listed for directions on 12th September 2025, the following additional questions were also framed by the Constitution Bench:

(iii) Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge?

(iv) Whether a person who has been Civil Judge for a period of seven years or has been an Advocate and Civil Judge for a combined period of seven years or more than seven years would be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India?

157. In that respect, we are of the considered view that for bringing the advocates and the in-service candidates at the same level, it will be appropriate that the rules provide that an in-service candidate should be eligible for recruitment to the post of district judge directly only if he has a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer. Similarly, if an advocate is participating in the selection process and he was a member of judicial service in the past, then his experience as a judicial officer also cannot be ignored. His experience as an advocate prior to joining judicial service, his experience as a judicial officer and his experience as an advocate after leaving the judicial service will all have to be taken together. Such a candidate will be eligible only if he has a combined experience as an advocate and as a judicial officer for seven years.

158. We are also of the considered view that in order to make available a level playing field for all the candidates, whether from in-service or advocates/pleaders, the minimum age as on the date of application should be 35 years as recommended by the Shetty Commission.

159. Insofar as the contention regarding the heartburn amongst the judicial officers in a situation where a junior gets promoted before the senior is concerned, in our view, the said contention is without any merit. The in-service candidates, though junior, will have to compete before being selected with the advocates as also their seniors, who also will be qualified, and only meritorious candidates would be selected and appointed. If a person is meritorious and on account of merit and merit alone gets selected directly as a district judge, there can be no question of heartburn for those who are not as meritorious as persons selected.

161. In the selection process, as observed by the Shetty Commission, the selection would be on the basis of competitive examination, including both written examination and viva voce, and the majority of the marks would be for the written examination. The advocates/pleaders as well as in-service candidates would compete together and only the best/most meritorious amongst them will be selected with no weightage being conferred on in-service candidates. If such a restriction is not applicable in All India Services, we see no reason to import such an artificial restriction in the appointment of district judges by way of direct recruitment.

163. ….. if a person has practised for five years and thereafter, he takes a break of ten years and thereafter practises for two years, there will be a disconnect with the legal profession. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that only such persons working either as an advocate/pleader including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or as a judicial officer who, on the date of application, have a continuous experience of either an advocate/pleader or a judicial officer or a combination thereof shall only be eligible to be considered for appointment as district judges through the stream of direct recruitment.

viii. Quota for Advocates under Article 233(2)

164. We are also not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising advocates. We are of the view that if the contention in this respect is accepted, it will amount to providing a “quota” for the advocates having seven years’ practice.

167. We are of the considered view that all the judgments right from Satya Narain Singh (supra) onwards till Dheeraj Mor (supra) have incorrectly applied the law laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Rameshwar Dayal (supra) and Chandra Mohan (supra). As a result, by applying the law laid down by this line of judgments, injustice was meted out to the members of the judicial services, thereby depriving them from participating in the selection process for the post of district judges by way of direct recruitment.

172. In the result, we answer the questions as under:

• (i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;
• (ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;
• (iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;
• (iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution;
• (v) In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application;
• (vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh (supra) till Dheeraj Mor (supra), which take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not lay down the correct proposition of law.

174. …. It is directed that all the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts shall frame/amend the rules in accordance with what has been held by us hereinabove, within a period of three months from today.