CASE TITLE:
Praveen Garg Vs. The High Court Of Delhi & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
15 December 2022
JUDGE(S):
Justice Vibhu Bakhru
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
SUBJECT
The Delhi High Court held that for a candidate to be eligible for appointment as a District Judge, in terms of the Article 233(2) of the Constitution, it is mandatory that he should have been in practice as an advocate or a pleader for a continuous period of seven years as on the date of the application. The Court reached made the above observation while hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 9(2) of Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules, 1970 as being ultra vires the Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.
IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Article 233(2)- prescribes the criteria for appointment as a district judge- the person shall not be in service of the Union or State and should have been an advocate or a pleader for not less than seven years.
Rule 9(2) of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970- prescribed that the person seeking appointment must have been continuously practicing as an Advocate for not less than seven years on the date of the receipt of the application.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- On 23.02.2022, the establishment of the Delhi High Court invited applications for filing up 45 vacancies by way of direct recruitment in the Delhi Higher Judicial Examination.
- The petitioner applied for the said post, qualified both the preliminary and main examinations and also cleared the interview round.
- However, his name did not find a place in the list of selected candidates on the ground that he did not meet the eligibility criteria for the said post which was, a continuous practice of seven years as an advocate as on the date of filing the online application[Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Service Rules, 1970].
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
- The petitioner claimed that he had practiced as an advocate cumulatively for a period of 7 years and 2 months as on the last date to apply for Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2022.
- He further contended that Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules falls foul of the Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India as it does not require for a continuous period of 7 years as the criteria for appointment as a District Judge.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether a person who has been an advocate or pleader cumulatively (and not continuously) for a period of seven years prior to the date of application, would also qualify the criteria as specified in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court, while relying on the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant, observed that the legal issue in question is no longer res integra and has been already addressed in various preceding judgements. A few of which are as follows-
- Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors [(2013) 5 SCC 277].- It was held by the Supreme Court that the expression “if he has been for not less than 7 years as an advocate” as appears in Article 233(2) of the Constitution shall be interpreted to mean seven years immediately preceding his appointment/application and not seven years at any time in the past.
- Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [(2018) 4 SCC 619]:- The Apex Court in this case observed the apparent diversity that existed in the previous decisions on the said issue and referred the matter to the larger Bench of three Judges on the Apex Court. The Constitutional Bench upheld the decision of Deepak Aggarwal’s case. The expression means seven years as an advocate immediately preceding the application and not seven years any time in the past as the word ‘has been’ has been used in the said expression, observed the Court.
CONCLUSION
The learned Court concluded that in view of the decision in Deeraj More v Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the contention of the plaintiff that Rule 9(2) of DHJS Rules falls foul of Article 233 of the Constitution can not be accepted. The said rule is in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
