Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ritu Chouhan vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 12 May, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
ON THE 12th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11369 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RITU CHOUHAN D/O SHRI S N CHOUHAN, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O 22
RISHI NAGAR CHAR IMLI BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
( BY SHRI ADITYA SANGHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL R/ NOT
MENTIONED (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. REGISTRAR EXAMS HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
order/notice (Annexure P/7) which makes petitioner ineligible
for appearing in the Mains Examination on 13.05.2023.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to treat the petitioner as eligible candidate for the
examination scheduled on 13.05.2023.
(iii) Any other relief/direction/order as deemed fit and
proper looking to the present facts and circumstances of the
case.
(iv) Cost of the petition."
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was registered as an Advocate
on 13.12.2009 in Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council. Thereafter, she
appeared in the examination for the post of Civil Judge and was
appointed as a Civil Judge on 14.7.2010. Thereafter, she resigned from
the post of Civil Judge on 25.5.2015. Again she started practice from
26.5.2015 and she has completed practice of 7 years till date.
3. An advertisement was issued on 15.12.2022 namely M.P. Higher
Judicial Service (District Judge- Entry Level) Direct Recruitment from
Bar, Exam-2022 vide Advertisement No. 129/Exam/DR_HJS/2022 for
recruitment on 12 posts in M.P. District Judge (Entry Level). The
petitioner applied for the aforesaid post. Now main written exam is
scheduled to be held on 13th and 14th May, 2023. Vide notification dated
13.04.2023, a list of qualified candidates for Mains Written Examination
was issued by the Registrar (Exam). The petitioner has been declared as
ineligible on account of lack of continuous practice of 7 years as an
Advocate. Hence this petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
continuously practiced as an Advocate for more than 7 years and
therefore, she cannot be debarred as ineligible candidate for the aforesaid
exam.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The eligibility of the candidates for appointment to the post in
question has been enumerated in Clause 2 of the advertisement issued for
M.P. Higher Judicial Service (District Judge-Entry Level) Direct
Recruitment from Bar, Exam-2022. The relevant clause 2 reads as
follows:-
"2. Eligibility of candidates-
No person shall be eligible for appointment by direct
recruitment unless, he or she-
(a) is a citizen of India;
(b) has attained the age of 35 (thirty five) years and has not
attained the age of 45 (forty five) years on the first day
of January in the year in which applications for
recruitment are invited;
(c)(i) has for atleast 7 (seven) years been an advocate on the
first day of January of the recruitment year in which
applications for recruitment are invited (certificate of
competent authority is required);
Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated
19.02.2020 passed in SLP (C) No. 14156/2015 (Dheeraj Mor
Vs. High Court of Delhi) has held that-
"47 (iv) For the purpose of Article 233(2), an Advocate
has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7
years as on the cut-off date and at the time of
appointment as District Judge. Members of judicial
service having 7 years' experience of practice before
they have joined the service or having combined
experience of 7 years as lawyer and member of
judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct
recruitment as a District Judge."
(c)(ii) has been Prosecution Officers/Addl./Assistant
Prosecution Officer, having Seven or more years of
experience, (will be treated to be an Advocate and
eligible as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 561/2013 (Deepak Aggarwal Vs.
Keshav Kaushik & others);
(d) has good character and is of sound mind and body
and free from any physical and mental disability
which renders him//her unfit for such appointment;"
7. On perusal of eligibility criteria, it is apparent that the candidate
having experience of 7 years of continuous practice as an Advocate on
the first day of January of the recruitment year, shall be eligible for
appointment. The advertisement for recruitment was issued on
15.12.2022. As per the terms and conditions enumerated in the
advertisement, the petitioner was required to submit the documents in
respect of 7 years' continuous practice on the first date of January, 2022,
which is the recruitment year. As per Annexure (P-1), earlier the
petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate from 13.12.2009 and her period of
judicial service was w.e.f. 29.7.2010 to 25.5.2015. Thereafter, as per the
certificate issued by Principal District Judge, Bhopal she was again
enrolled w.e.f. 3.10.2019. The documents produced by the petitioner in
respect of her experience as an Advocate shows that her registration at
District Bar Association, Bhopal is from 3.10.2019. If 7 years period of
practice is counted from 3.10.2019 as on the cut off date, it is clear that
the petitioner has not completed 7 years of continuous practice as an
Advocate. Even otherwise, counting her continuous period of practice
from the date of her resignation from judicial service i.e. 25.5.2015 till
the first day of January, 2022, which is the recruitment year, she does not
fulfil the criteria of 7 years of continuous practice as an Advocate.
8. Thus, in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra), in the considered opinion of
this Court, the petitioner has rightly been declared as ineligible to appear
in the Mains Examination of M.P. Higher Judicial Service (District
Judge-Entry Level) Direct Recruitment from Bar, Exam-2022. The
petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference.
9. Under these circumstances, the petition being devoid of merit, is
accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
PB
RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI
2023.05.15 16:20:26
+05'30'
