Case Law Details
A person who has been an advocate for not less than seven years and thereafter appointed as ADPPO (full-time salaried employee) is entitled for selection on the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
1. Epochal question that falls for consideration is whether an Advocate who has put in seven years practice and thereafter, appointed as Assistant District Prosecution Officer, who is a full-time salaried employee of the State Government and governed by the statutory rules of the State, is eligible for appointment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India.
2. The High Court of Chhattisgarh – respondent No. 1 issued advertisement inviting applications for recruitment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by holding District Judge (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment Examination, 2013, laying down the eligibility criteria that a candidate is held to be eligible if he has been for at least seven years in continuous practice as an Advocate on the first day of January, 2013 in accordance with Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 (i) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the HJS Rules, 2006’).
3. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category laid their candidature for the said post. Respondent No.2 submitted his experience certificate for the said post in which it is mentioned that from 5- 9-2000 to 2-3-2008, he remained as an Advocate. In the meanwhile, he was appointed as Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (ADPPO) on 23-2-2008 on which post he joined on 3-3-2008. He has also filed a certificate that he remained on the said post from 3-3-2008 up to 10-9-2013. His candidature was accepted finding the application in order and ultimately, he was selected on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) vide selection list published on 28-3-2014 and thereafter, he was appointed on 30-10-2014, whereas the petitioner remained as wait listed candidate No. 1 in the waiting list prepared by respondent No. 1.
4. The petitioner herein being wait-listed candidate No.1 has filed this writ petition stating inter alia that respondent No. 2 herein did not have the requisite eligibility qualification for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) as he has not been in continuous practice as an Advocate for seven years as on 1st day of January, 2013, since he joined the post of ADPPO on 3-3- 2008 and he got his license with the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh suspended on 11-4-2008 and, therefore, he has not been an Advocate as on 1-1-2013 as such, he has illegally been held eligible by respondent No.1 High Court of Chhattisgarh for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and, therefore, his selection and consequent appointment deserves to be quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
