K PRADEEP Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Honourable The Chief Justice The claim for selection of a non-practising advocate to the post of District Judge is a question for consideration in this writ petition. The petitioner challenges the notification dated 10.08.2003, by which applications were sought for, for selection to the post of District Judge-Grade-II by direct recruitment. The power is vested with the High Court whose recommendation to the Government is final, even though the Government issues the notification, as also the appointment order. There are two channels for appointment to the post of District Judge, and that is provided by a constitutional provision contained in Article 233. While Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India deals with promotion of the Subordinate Judicial Officers to the rank of District Judge, Article 233(2) deals with direct recruitment. There are rules framed in this regard to give effect to the above constitutional provisions. Article 233 reads thus:-

(2.) In this case, the petitioner is not a practising Advocate as of now. He was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1988 with Enrolment No.639/88. But in August, 1996, he had quit practice and joined the services of M/s.Kothari Orient Finance Limited, a non banking finance company at Chennai as Assistant Manager-Legal. In August 1998, he joined M/s.India Cements Capital & Finance Limited as Manager-Legal, which is also a non-banking finance company, at Chennai. In the year 2001, he became Senior Manager-Legal in the said company, and is still working in the same company. His case is that as Assistant Manager-Legal or Manager or Senior Manager-Legal in the second company, with whom he is presently employed, he had been handling the case files and advising the company, and also pursuing their cases. The petitioner claims that in the process he has gained so much legal knowledge and that he is able to handle every case. His life ambition is to become a Judge, and he questions the constitutional embargo on "non-practising Advocates".

(3.) His contention is that though practice as an advocate as such is necessary, what is important is the knowledge in law, so as to discharge the functions of judge in administering the justice. According to the data given by him, he had practised from the year 1988 to 1996, which satisfies the seven-year rule, but he ceased to be an advocate in the year 1996, as he joined in a company. According to his own admission, he is not practising in the Court. There are lot of officers like Central Government Pleaders, State Government Pleaders or Standing counsel for Corporations, Organisations. But they do not cease to be advocates and practise in the Courts or Tribunals as the case may be. Such is not the case with the petitioner. To be eligible for being selected and appointed as a District Judge under sub-Article (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, one should have a minimum practice of seven years at the Bar, and also should have practised as such continuously and it is not enough that once upon a time he has finished seven years stint as an Advocate. As the persons and perception change with changing times, and the law being not still water, but ever changing like a running stream with change in statutes, and also the judge-made law, there is necessity of lawyer continuing practise so as to be eligible to become a Judge at all levels in the hierarchy of judiciary in the case of direct recruitment. We need not refer to old decisions in this regard and in fact, the latest judgment rendered by the Supreme court in SUSHMA SURI Vs. GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI (1999 (1) SCC 330) clinches the issue. The Judgment is clear enough laying down the legal principles very succinctly that a lawyer to become a District Judge should have a minimum of seven years experience at the Bar and should have been an advocate at the time of appointment as a District Judge and such lawyer can be a private lawyer, or a Government lawyer or a lawyer for corporation or other statutory bodies to appear and practise before the Courts or Tribunals. Such being the law of the land, the petitioner's contention has to fail and accordingly, we hold that the petitioner was ineligible to apply for selection to the post of District Judge pursuant to the notification mentioned above. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.Ps are also dismissed.