ELIGIBILITY FOR TO BE APPOINTED AS DISTRICT JUDGE
KAMARAJ BHARATHY G
(Querist) 17 July 2010
This query is : Resolved
I would like to bring to your kind attention about the District Judge (Entry Level) recruitment notification, which has been issued by the Public (Special.A) Department, Government of Tamilnadu on 01.07.2010. In that notification it is mentioned that the applicant must be practicing on the date of notification as an advocate.
I further state that the Article 233 of the Constitution of India states as follows
"Appointment of district judges.- (1) Appointments of persons to be , and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the state in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
(2)A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment."
In the above said Article it is clearly stated that a person who is not in the Union or the State service and has been advocate for minimum 7 years, is eligible to be appointed as District Judge. As per the Constitution the eligibility is 7 years experience as an advocate and he need not be an advocate at the time of appointment.
At this juncture, in the rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 (G.O. Ms. No. 79, Home (Cts.IA), 19th January 2007)the sentence "Must be practicing on the date of Notification as an Advocate" is purely violation of the Constitution of India and Ultra Virus.
Therefore, I wish to prevent the Constitutional violation and act of Ultra virus, and we want to take step to repeal the sentence "Must be practicing on the date of Notification as an Advocate" from the Tamil Nadu Judicial Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 (G.O. Ms. No. 79, Home (Cts.IA), 19th January 2007) and cancel the notification of the Public(Special.A) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, dated 01.07.2010 KIndly give your suggessions and interpretation also.
S. Bharath
(Expert) 17 July 2010
I am told that this is the aspect on which the Bench comprising the CJ and Justice Jeyapaul [at Madurai] have passed interim orders on 2 writ petitions and have directed the registry to transfer and post these writs before the principal seat at Chennai. By the way, if you have the full text of the TNJS [Cadre & Recruitment] Rules 2007, please share with us. Thanks.
KAMARAJ BHARATHY G
(Querist) 17 July 2010
Dear Sir,
Can I know the details of the 2 interim orders, which were informed in your reply
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 18 July 2010
well, a similar point has been raised in a writ petition before Punjab and Haryana high court in a matter related to appointment of Addl. District and Sessions Judges in the state of Haryana, in that matter, to my knowledge, P&H high court has accepted the contention of the state that the person shall not be in govt. job at the time of selection.
i have attached the requisite file, pls check the same and I think some SC judgment has also been relied upon on the same issue.
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 18 July 2010
the call for was 7 years of experience
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 18 July 2010
Thanks Kiran, for the citation.
pawan sharma
(Expert) 20 July 2010
Thanks, Mr. Kiran, for the judgment on this issue.
pawan sharma
(Expert) 23 July 2010
dear, S. Bharath two judgment are found
but they no link with issue.
1. WA.695 of 2008 Aziz Ahmed Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Coram: The Honourable Mr.M.Y.EQBAL CHIEF JUSTICE ,The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM , 24/06/2010
2. W.P. No.371 of 2006
R.Balasubramanian Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu
Coram: THE HON'BLE Mr.ELIPE DHARMA RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ,THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL , 08/06/2010
