judicial service rules - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Seeks Larger Bench’s View :Can a Serving Judicial Officer Apply as a “Fresh” Judge?

14Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Seeks Larger Bench’s View :Can a Serving Judicial Officer Apply as a “Fresh” Judge?

The Supreme Court referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It identified two substantial questions of law concerning the eligibility of judicial officers with prior bar experience for direct recruitment as District Judges, and the relevant time for determining such eligibility. Facts Of The Case: The present batch of petitions primarily sought a review of the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In that decision, a three-judge bench had upheld rules that barred members of the state judicial service from applying for the posts of District Judges reserved for direct recruitment from the bar under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The review petitioners, along with other connected writ petiti...

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Unselected Judge Candidate

The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, applies only when the number of eligible candidates is less than the advertised vacancies. Since one recommended candidate was rejected, the next eligible candidate (appellant) should have been appointed instead of carrying forward the vacancy. The Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory rules in judicial appointments, reinforcing that vacancies must be filled from the existing merit list unless rules explicitly permit otherwise. The judgment clarifies that "selected direct recruits available for appointment" includes candidates next in line if recommended candidates are not approved. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Tosh Kumar Sharma, who participated in the 2016 recruitment proce...

Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts

The Supreme Court modified judicial service rules, increasing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for District Judge promotions from 10% to 25%. It reduced the required experience for LDCE eligibility to 3 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and mandated 10% accelerated promotions for Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Court also reinstated a 3-year minimum Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, counting from provisional enrollment. Vacancies under LDCE will be filled via regular promotion if unfilled. States must amend rules within three months to comply. The judgment aims to incentivize merit while ensuring judicial efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a series of interlocutory applications (IAs) filed in t...