Articles 14 and 16 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post

This Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment reinterpreted Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It held that judicial officers are not barred from applying for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment. The Court clarified that the seven-year practice requirement under Article 233(2) applies only to candidates not already in judicial service, thereby overruling contrary precedents like Dheeraj Mor. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a batch of petitions challenging the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of District Judges. The core dispute was whether a person already in the state judicial service (a Civil Judge) could apply for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment, a stream historically reserved fo...

Supreme Court Opens Direct Recruitment for District Judges to In-Service Judicial Officers

Supreme Court , This Constitution Bench judgment overruled prior rulings from Satya Narain Singh to Dheeraj Mor, holding that Article 233(2) of the Constitution does not bar in-service judicial officers from direct recruitment to District Judge posts. It clarifies that eligibility is determined at the time of application and requires a combined seven-year experience as an advocate and judicial officer. Facts Of The Case: The batch of matters arose from conflicting interpretations of Article 233 of the Constitution regarding the eligibility of in-service judicial officers (Civil Judges) for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge. The core legal controversy was triggered by the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), which held that for di...

Doctrine of Severability: Supreme Court Says Don’t Punish the Innocent for Administrative Lapses

The Supreme Court distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments, holding that procedural lapses not attributable to the appointees do not render appointments void if made against sanctioned posts by competent authority. The doctrine of severability applies to protect valid appointments from en masse cancellation, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 16. Natural justice mandates individual scrutiny before termination. Facts Of The Case: The appellants were initially appointed to Class-IV posts in the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) between 2004–2006. Subsequently, they applied for and were selected for Class-III posts (Routine Clerk and Lower Division Assistant) through an internal recruitment process in 2009, pursuant to a standing order. Their appointments were f...