SC: Serving Judicial Officers cannot club their previous experience as advocates to claim eligibility for elevation as High Court Judges [Read Judgment]

On 4^th September the Supreme Court in the case of R. Poornima and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors comprising of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian ruled that the Serving Judicial Officers cannot club their previous experience as advocates to claim eligibility for elevation as High Court Judges.

Facts

Persons who were appointed as District Judges by the way of direct recruitment in the Tamil Nadu state Judicial Service have filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

1. Issue a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Directions, to call for records relating to the last list of names recommended by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Madras to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appointment as Judges of Madras High Court and quash the same in so far as it relates to the names of the Respondents herein and consequently direct the Hon’ble Collegium if the Madras High Court to consider the names of the Petitioners also for appointment as High Court Judges;
2. Issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Directions, directing the Respondents to return the last list of names for appointment as Judges of High Court, Madras recommended by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Madras to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

Further, to the present writ petition court issued notice restricted only to one question

Petitioner Contentions & Submissions

The Petitioner grievance is that despite being the Senior most in the cadre of District Judges, they have been overlooked and their juniors now recommended for elevation to the High Court as Judges. This, according to the Petitioners was done by the Collegium of the High Court solely on the application of Explanation (a) under Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Contention of the Petitioner is that to determine the eligibility of a person sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Article 217 together with Explanation (a) and (aa) should be applied simultaneously.

Further, the petitioner wants the experience gained by them as advocates to be clubbed together with the service rendered by them as Judicial Officers, for determining their eligibility.

Supreme Court Findings and Judgment

The Supreme Court in its findings relied on the principles of the three-member bench of the Supreme Court, which are as follows:-

1. For the purpose of Article 232(2), an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the off date and also at the time of appointment as District Judge. Members of Judicial Service having 7 years experiences of practice before they joined the service of those having combined experience of 7 years as lawyer and member of the judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as District Judge, and
2. The decision of Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature of Patna upholding the eligibility of a Judicial Officer to apply for the post of District Judge by way of Direct recruitment, do not lay down the law correctly and hence, overruled.

Further, the Supreme Court in its findings stated that it is clear from the language of Article 217 that clause(1) merely prescribes the method of appointment and the age up to which an appointee can hold office. Clause (2) does two things. First, it stipulates the qualification for appointment under the 2 subclauses (a) and (b). Then it stipulated the method of reckoning such qualification under the 2 limbs of the Explanation.

The Court stated that it will be discriminatory to allow the benefit of clubbing only to a person who held a judicial officer and later became an advocate, does not appeal to us. In fact, Article 217(2) does not guarantee anyone with the right to be appointed as judge of the High Court. In a way person holding a judicial officer is better placed, as he is assured of a career progression after being placed in something like a conveyor belt. There is no assurance of an Advocate.

Lastly, the Supreme Court stated that we are of the considered view that the claim of the writ petitioners is wholly untenable and the writ petition is misconceived.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com