PRAVEEN GARG Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules, 1970 (hereafter "the Rules') as amended on 8/2/2022. The petitioner claims that the said rule is ultra vires Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he had practiced as an advocate cumulatively for a period of 7 years and 2 months as on 12/3/2022 " the last date to apply for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2022 (hereafter "the DHJSE, 2022'). He claims that, as such, he qualifies the eligibility criteria under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. However, Rule 9(2) of the Rules requires an applicant to be in continuous practice of at least 7 years as on the date of the application for being eligible for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services. According to the petitioner, the same falls foul of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India as the same does not expressly require a candidate to be in continuous practice of at least 7 years to be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge. Factual Context

(3.) The petitioner was enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana on 24/7/2012 (License no. P/963/2012). He claims that he joined active practice as an advocate at the District and Sessions Court, Ambala and also became a member of the District Bar Association, Ambala, Haryana. In the year 2015, he appeared for the District Legal Aid Officer Exam, 2014 conducted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and was ranked on top of the list of successful candidates who had appeared for the said examination. He joined the services on 9/3/2015 as the District Legal Aid Officer, Morena, Madhya Pradesh. In the same year, he appeared for Civil Judge, Class-II Examination, 2015 conducted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He was successful and selected as a Civil Judge, Class-II.