Constitution Bench Allows Judicial Officers To Compete In Direct Recruitment For District Judges With Combined Seven‑Year Experience; States Must Amend Rules

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Aravind Kumar, Satish C. Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, with a concurring opinion by Justice M.M. Sundresh, heard a batch of appeals and writ petitions raising substantial questions on Article 233 of the Constitution — chiefly whether judicial officers already in service may be appointed to the district judiciary by direct recruitment and when eligibility must be tested.

Decision Summary The Court held that Article 233 did not prescribe qualifications for candidates already in judicial service but read the provision so as not to render any phrase otiose. It allowed in‑service judicial officers to participate in the direct recruitment stream provided appropriate parity was maintained with Bar candidates. The Bench summarised its binding answers and directions, including a requirement to ensure a level playing field by treating service experience and Bar practice together for eligibility.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in‑service candidate should have seven years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;”

The majority further directed that the minimum age for applicants in either stream be fixed at 35 years and required State Governments, in consultation with their High Courts, to amend rules within three months. The Bench emphasised selection on merit: “It is only merit and merit alone that shall matter.”

Background The litigation arose from conflicting interpretations of Article 233 following earlier rulings, notably the three‑Judge decision in Dheeraj Mor and prior Constitution‑Bench precedents in Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan. Petitioners (in‑service judicial officers and their supporters) argued that Article 233 permitted members of the judicial service to compete for direct recruitment vacancies and that prior case law had been misread to bar them. Respondents (representatives of bar interests and State authorities) maintained that the direct recruitment quota was intended only for practising advocates of seven years’ standing and that in‑service officers were to be appointed by promotion/consultation routes.

The Constitution Bench analysed Article 233(1)–(2) and adjoining provisions (Articles 234–237), the history of decisions and recommendations by the Shetty Commission and All India Judges’ Association directions. The Bench concluded that clauses (1) and (2) must be read together: clause (1) fixed the appointing authority (Governor in consultation with the High Court) for appointments, postings and promotions, and clause (2) stipulated a specific qualification only for the stream “not already in the service” (seven years’ Bar experience and High Court recommendation). To avoid rendering words redundant, the Court held that in‑service candidates were not excluded from direct recruitment but that parity required a combined seven years’ experience as advocate and judicial officer for those seeking to enter by the direct‑recruitment route. The Court rejected a rigid, pedantic construction that would bar meritorious serving judges from competing and directed uniform rule‑making to implement the scheme. The Court limited the retrospective effect of its ruling: completed selections and appointments before this judgment would not be disturbed except where interim orders required reconsideration.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3947 OF 2020 (and connected matters in the batch) Case Title: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Others (and connected writ petitions/review petitions) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Jayant Bhushan (Senior Counsel); Arvind P. Datar (Senior Counsel); P.S. Patwalia (Senior Counsel); V. Giri; Vibha Datta Makhija (Senior Counsel); Jaideep Gupta; Dr. Manish Singhvi (Senior Counsel); Dama Seshadri Naidu; George Poonthottam; Gopal Sankaranarayanan; Menaka Guruswamy (Senior Counsel); Rajive Bhalla; Anil Kaushik; Amit Anand Tewari; B.H. Marlapalle; Narendra Hooda; Anand Sanjay M. Nuli. For the Respondent(s): C.U. Singh (Senior Counsel); Nidhesh Gupta (Senior Counsel); Vijay Hansaria (Senior Counsel); Ravindra Shrivastava (Senior Counsel); Rajiv Shakdher (Senior Counsel); Amit Gupta; Kanhaiya Singhal; Rashid N. Azam; Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh; Sindoora VNL; Yashvardhan; Kavya Jhawar; Nandini Rai. Assistance: Ajay Kumar Singh and John Mathew acted as Nodal Counsel assisting the Court.

Outcome in brief: Reference answered — in‑service judicial officers may be considered in the direct recruitment stream provided they meet a combined seven‑year threshold (advocate + judicial officer), minimum age 35; States to amend rules in consultation with High Courts within three months; matters in the batch to be placed before an appropriate Bench for consequential orders.