{"id":225906,"date":"2020-02-19T19:07:35","date_gmt":"2020-02-19T13:37:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=225906"},"modified":"2020-02-24T17:59:32","modified_gmt":"2020-02-24T12:29:32","slug":"members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/19\/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates\/","title":{"rendered":"Members of subordinate judiciary can’t claim direct recruitment to the District judge post under quota meant for practicing advocates"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held that members of the judicial service of any State cannot claim to be appointed for vacancies in the cadre of District Judge, in the quota earmarked for appointment from amongst eligible Advocates, under Article 233.<\/p>\n

The Court was hearing a reference from a case wherein the petitioners who are in judicial service, had claimed that in case before joining judicial service a candidate has completed 7 years of practice as an advocate, he\/she shall be eligible to stake claim as against the direct recruitment quota from the Bar notwithstanding that on the date of application\/appointment, he or she is in judicial service of the Union or State.<\/p>\n

Rejecting the contention of the petitioners, the Court held,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThough the appointment is made under Article 233(1), but the source and the channel for judicial officers is the promotion, and for the members of the Bar is by direct recruitment.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Court told the petitioners that it was open to them not to join the subordinate services. They could have staked a claim by continuing to be an advocate to the Higher Judicial Service as against the post of District Judge. However, once they chose to be in service, if they had seven years’ experience at Bar before joining the judicial service, they are disentitled to lay a claim to the 25% quota exclusively earmarked for Advocates; having regard to the dichotomy of different streams and separate quota for recruitment.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe recruitment from the Bar also has a purpose behind it. The practicing advocates are recruited not only in the higher judiciary but in the High Court and Supreme Court as well. There is a stream (of appointment) for in\u00adservice candidates of higher judiciary in the High Court and another stream clearly earmarked for the Bar. The members of the Bar also become experts in their field and gain expertise and have the\u00a0 experience of appearing in various\u00a0 courts.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Justice Mishra, writing for himself and Justice Saran, hence, held:<\/p>\n