ROLLIE KAUSER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The peti tioner has challenged the selection process with respect to Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 1997 and for other reliefs. The petitioner's educational career has been stated in the writ petition as fol lows: EXAMINATION PASSED GRADE/div ISION MARKSHEBT ISSUEd (i) From Saint Mary's Convent, Allahabad. I. C. S. E. (1985) A March, 1985 I. S. C. (1987) A March, 1987 (ii) From University of Allahabad B. A. (1990) First 01-05-1991 M. A. (1992) Second 10-11-1994 I, L. B. 1st Year, 1993 - 24-07-1995 LL. B. Ilncl Year, 1994 - 25-01-1997 LL. B. Illrd Year, 1995 Second 06-02-1998 2. There were two complains of the petitioner in the writ petition. One is that because of delay in completion of session by holding examination, the petitioner could not obtain the law degree in year 1995 and she had to wait till the year 1998 and, therefore, the provision of qualifica tion of three years practice at the bar causes prejudice to the petitioner par ticularly when she will not be getting req uisite number of opportunities as she would cross upper age limit. 3. With regard to this contention it appears that three years experience at the bar has been provided in the concerned advertisement in view of the observation made by the apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, reported in A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 2493. 4. There may be some force in the contention of a candidate who loses his vital part of life because of delay of educa tional authorities in completing the academic session and holding examina tion at the proper time and there may be circumstances which would necessitate ex emption, partial or total, in such qualifica tion of practical experience. But in the present writ petition neither necessary facts have been pleaded nor any such relief has been prayed for on the said ground. The concerned authorities in respect of said contention have not been made par ties. 5. The second aspect, mainly given stress upon, was that Rule 13 of Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 provided for such experience qualification originally. But the same was subsequently deleted with effect from 4-8-1958 as per Niyukli Vibhag notification dated 23-8-1958 as published in the Government Gazette of State of Uttar Pradesh. It has been contended that since then the said experience qualification has not been provided and specific deletion of a requirement indicates that such qualification was felt not necessary. The petitioner appearing in person contends that in view of aforesaid she cannot be deprived of opportunity of appearing in the examination on the ground of want of said qualification when admittedly the petitioner is having the law degree and sole ground on which her candidature was rejected was her not having law degree. 6. After considering the aforesaid contention and perusing the original mark sheets produced by the petitioner it ap pears that the petitioner did pass the req uisite examination and result was declared on 6-2-1998. In such circumstances, the impugned order may not be correct. But, admittedly the petitioner is not having the experience of three years legal practice and, therefore, she is not a qualified can didate in terms of the advertisement, which provides specific requirements of three years experience in legal practice. In such circumstances there is no reason for interference on the present writ petition as apparently the petitioner is not having due qualification making her entitled to participate in the examination. 7. With regard to deletion of Rule requiring the experience at the bar. We find that the apex Court in the aforesaid case of All India Judge Association (supra) made categorical observation that such ex perience is a necessary requirement. Relevant observation made in the said case is as follows: "it has, however, become imperative, in this connection, to take notice of the fact that the qualifications prescribed and the procedure adopted for recruitment of the Judges at the lowest rung are not uniform in all the States. In view of the uniformity in the hierarchy and desig nations as well as the service conditions that we have suggested, it is necessary that all the States should prescribe uniform qualifications and adopt uniform procedure in recruiting the judi cial officers at the lowest rung in the hierarchy. In most of the States, the minimum qualifica tions for being eligible to the post of the Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class/magistrate First Class/munsiff Magistrate is minimum three years' practice as a lawyer in addition to the degree in law. In some States, however, the requirement of practice is altogether dispensed with and Judicial Officers are recruited with only a degree of law to their credit. The recruitment of law graduates as judicial officers without any training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful experiment. Consider ing the fact that from the first day of his assum ing office, the Judge has to decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers in neither prudent nor desirable. Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an ade quate substitute for the first hand experience of the working of the Court system and the ad ministration of justice begotten through legal practice. The practice involves much more than mere advocacy. A lawyer has no interact with several components of the administration of jus tice. Unless the judicial officer is familiar with the working of the said components, his educa tion and equipment as a Judge is likely to remain incomplete. The experience as a lawyer is, there fore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with con fidence and circumspection. Many States have hence prescribed a minimum of three years' practice as a lawyer as an essential qualification for appointment as a judicial officer at the lowest rung. It is, hence necessary that all the States prescribe the said minimum practice as lawyer as a necessary qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung in the judiciary. In this connection, it may be pointed out that under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution, no person is eligible to be ap pointed a District Judge unless he has been an advocate or a pleaded for no less than seven years while Articles 217 (2) (b) and 124 (b) require at least ten years' practice as an advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a person to the posts of the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court, respectively. We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' prac tice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung. " 8. In view of aforesaid, although rules have not been amended accordingly in terms of said direction of the apex Court making the experience in legal profession as a necessary qualification, the incorpora tion of said qualification by the Commis sion is not being interfered as we do not find any illegality or irregularity therein necessitating exercise of our discretion. There is no reason for holding that such an extra qualification could not be prescribed even in view of the law laid down by the apex Court. Only the fact that Rules have not been amended in terms of the said direction does not persuade us to interfere on the present writ petition. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the selection process had not been initiated earlier, need not be considered as the petitioner admittedly acquired law de gree only in February, 1998 and, therefore, petitioner cannot make any grievance on the said ground. 10. Therefore, in view of aforesaid findings this writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .