Supreme Court Upholds Separate Quotas for Judicial Officers and Advocates in District Judge Appointments

Judicial officers cannot claim posts reserved for advocates with seven years’ practice; Rules barring such claims are constitutionally valid

In a landmark judgment delivered on February 19, 2020, the Supreme Court of India clarified the constitutional scheme regarding the appointment of District Judges, specifically addressing the eligibility of judicial officers to compete for posts reserved for advocates in direct recruitment. The three-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and S. Ravindra Bhat held that the Constitution envisages two distinct streams for appointment to the post of District Judge: one through promotion from the subordinate judicial service and the other through direct recruitment from the Bar.

The judgment arose from a batch of appeals including the case of Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein judicial officers challenged the rules framed by various High Courts which barred them from applying for the quota of posts reserved exclusively for advocates with a minimum of seven years’ practice.

The Court reaffirmed the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, which governs the appointment of District Judges. Article 233(1) provides that appointments and promotions of District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court. Article 233(2) restricts eligibility for direct recruitment to persons not already in the service of the Union or the State who have been advocates or pleaders for at least seven years and are recommended by the High Court.

The key findings of the Court include:

1. Two Distinct Streams of Appointment: The Constitution clearly provides for two separate sources of appointment to District Judge posts — promotion from the judicial service and direct recruitment from the Bar. The judicial officers form a distinguished category and cannot claim posts reserved for direct recruitment from advocates.

2. Judicial Officers Not Eligible for Advocate Quota: Persons in judicial service, even if they had prior experience of practicing as advocates, cannot stake claim to the posts reserved for advocates under the 25% direct recruitment quota. The practice as an advocate must be continuous and current at the time of application and appointment. Experience gained as a judicial officer cannot be combined with prior practice to meet the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment.

3. Validity of Rules Debarring Judicial Officers: Rules framed by various High Courts that prohibit judicial officers from applying for posts reserved for advocates are not ultra vires the Constitution. Such rules conform to Articles 14, 16, and 233 of the Constitution and uphold the dichotomy established by the constitutional provisions.

4. Rejection of Vijay Kumar Mishra Decision: The Court overruled the 2016 judgment in Vijay Kumar Mishra & Anr. v. High Court of Patna, which had permitted judicial officers to participate in the selection process for advocate quota posts. The Supreme Court clarified that eligibility must be determined as per the rules and constitutional provisions at the time of application, not at the time of selection or appointment.

5. Roster System and Quotas: The Court reiterated the established principle that 75% of the posts in the Higher Judicial Service are filled by promotion (50% on merit-cum-seniority and 25% by limited departmental competitive examination), and 25% by direct recruitment from advocates. This system ensures a fair distribution of posts and maintains the independence and diversity of the judiciary.

6. No Violation of Equality: The Court dismissed arguments that the rules discriminated against judicial officers in violation of Articles 14 and 16. The classification between judicial officers and advocates is constitutionally sanctioned and serves the objective of maintaining judicial independence and ensuring diverse recruitment.

7. Impact on Interim Appointments: Judicial officers who obtained appointments as District Judges under interim orders permitting them to appear for direct recruitment examinations have to be reverted to their original posts if found ineligible. Their right to promotion will be considered according to prevailing rules.

The Court underscored the purpose behind direct recruitment from the Bar — advocates gain expertise by practicing law and appearing in various courts, which enriches the judiciary. By maintaining separate streams, the Constitution balances experience from within the judiciary and fresh perspectives from the Bar.

This judgment settles long-standing controversies and ensures adherence to the constitutional scheme governing judicial appointments. It preserves the distinction between the judicial service and the Bar, reinforcing that judicial officers cannot “sail in two boats” by claiming posts reserved for advocates.

The Supreme Court’s ruling mandates High Courts to continue framing and enforcing rules consistent with this interpretation, to maintain the integrity of judicial appointments and uphold the independence of the judiciary.

Statutory provisions

Article 14, Article 16, Article 50, Article 233, Article 234, Article 235, Article 236, Article 237 of the Constitution of India

Dheeraj Mor v. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1687659