<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that members of the subordinate judiciary are not eligible to apply for the post of district judges through direct recruitment, which is exclusively meant for practicing advocates.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and R Ravindra Bhat held that the civil judges, a junior division cannot appear for the examination of the higher judicial services, conducted by the high courts, to select Additional District Judges (ADJs).</p>.<p>Civil judges can be appointed to the post of ADJs by promotion and not by participating in competitive examinations, Justice Mishra, who read out excerpts of the judgement, said.</p>.<p>Higher judicial services exams can be undertaken by practicing advocates with a minimum seven years of experience at the Bar, the top court said.</p>.<p>The bench also said certain High Courts allowed the appointment of civil judges to the post of Additional District Judges, which was a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The top court directed for reverting such candidates to their previous posts.</p>.<p>According to Article 233 (2) of the Constitution, a person not already in the service of the Union or of a state becomes eligible for appointment as a district judge only if he has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. </p>.<p>The top court had previously allowed a number of serving civil judges, including from Karnataka, to participate in the higher judicial services examination conducted by respective high courts and in some cases by state public service commission.</p>.<p>In May 2019, the court had said in the case, civil judges from the judiciary were permitted to be appointed as against the quota which basically meant for practicing lawyers, serious prejudice may be caused to the Bar incumbents.</p>.<p>It had then directed no new appointments would be made from now onwards of in-service candidates against quota reserved for Bar. Even if in-service candidate has been selected in the examination held earlier as against the Bar quota no further appointment to be made of such candidates. The practicing advocates who have been found selected for appointment, their result be declared and they be appointed subject to the outcome of the pending matter, it had said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that members of the subordinate judiciary are not eligible to apply for the post of district judges through direct recruitment, which is exclusively meant for practicing advocates.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and R Ravindra Bhat held that the civil judges, a junior division cannot appear for the examination of the higher judicial services, conducted by the high courts, to select Additional District Judges (ADJs).</p>.<p>Civil judges can be appointed to the post of ADJs by promotion and not by participating in competitive examinations, Justice Mishra, who read out excerpts of the judgement, said.</p>.<p>Higher judicial services exams can be undertaken by practicing advocates with a minimum seven years of experience at the Bar, the top court said.</p>.<p>The bench also said certain High Courts allowed the appointment of civil judges to the post of Additional District Judges, which was a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The top court directed for reverting such candidates to their previous posts.</p>.<p>According to Article 233 (2) of the Constitution, a person not already in the service of the Union or of a state becomes eligible for appointment as a district judge only if he has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. </p>.<p>The top court had previously allowed a number of serving civil judges, including from Karnataka, to participate in the higher judicial services examination conducted by respective high courts and in some cases by state public service commission.</p>.<p>In May 2019, the court had said in the case, civil judges from the judiciary were permitted to be appointed as against the quota which basically meant for practicing lawyers, serious prejudice may be caused to the Bar incumbents.</p>.<p>It had then directed no new appointments would be made from now onwards of in-service candidates against quota reserved for Bar. Even if in-service candidate has been selected in the examination held earlier as against the Bar quota no further appointment to be made of such candidates. The practicing advocates who have been found selected for appointment, their result be declared and they be appointed subject to the outcome of the pending matter, it had said.</p>
