SHARAD CHANDRA KUMAR Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ applications, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raising identical questions of law and facts, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners are judicial officers working in the State of Bihar. The claim of the petitioners is that in the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the words "eligible advocate ", for the purposes of direct recruitment on the post of District Judge Entry Level, should mean not only an advocate, but also person, who has held/holds judicial office.

(2.) The petitioners also pray for a direction to the effect that in Art. 233(2) of the Constitution of India, the term 'not less than 7 years as an advocate or a pleader' should be read to mean that persons who have held/are holding judicial office, etc., after he/she became an advocate as well.

(3.) Such grievance of the petitioners arises out of the fact that Advertisement No.01/2015 was published inviting applications for direct recruitment in respect of 99 vacancies of the District judges, Entry Level, as on 31st March, 2015, from amongst the members of the Bar.