NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Thursday filled a 75-year-old constitutional vacuum that caused serious heartburn among judicial service officers, who took 15-20 years to become district judges through promotions and were left behind in career progression by advocates who with just seven years experience could become district judges through direct recruitment.
A five-judge bench of CJI B R Gavai, M M Sundresh, Arvind Kumar , S C Sharma and K V Chandran interpreted Article 233 of Constitution , which was silent on the experience of career judicial officers to get promoted as district judges, to provide a uniform criteria of seven years experience for both trial judges and advocates to make them eligible to compete for the posts.
CJI Gavai said, "A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a judicial officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a district judge /additional district judge under Article 233 of Constitution." Referring to the Shetty Commission recommendations, SC rejected the plea that permitting young trial judges with seven years combined experience as advocate and judicial officer would make them leapfrog over senior judicial officers who preferred the promotion chain to reach the post.
The CJI said, "If a person is meritorious and on account of merit alone gets selected directly as a district judge, there can be no question of heartburn for those who are not as meritorious..." Supreme Court provided an uniform eligibility age of 35 years for both advocates and judicial officers. It also erased 25% of posts reserved for advocates through direct recruitment.
A five-judge bench of CJI B R Gavai, M M Sundresh, Arvind Kumar , S C Sharma and K V Chandran interpreted Article 233 of Constitution , which was silent on the experience of career judicial officers to get promoted as district judges, to provide a uniform criteria of seven years experience for both trial judges and advocates to make them eligible to compete for the posts.
CJI Gavai said, "A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a judicial officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a district judge /additional district judge under Article 233 of Constitution." Referring to the Shetty Commission recommendations, SC rejected the plea that permitting young trial judges with seven years combined experience as advocate and judicial officer would make them leapfrog over senior judicial officers who preferred the promotion chain to reach the post.
The CJI said, "If a person is meritorious and on account of merit alone gets selected directly as a district judge, there can be no question of heartburn for those who are not as meritorious..." Supreme Court provided an uniform eligibility age of 35 years for both advocates and judicial officers. It also erased 25% of posts reserved for advocates through direct recruitment.
You may also like
"Names of DGP, SSP must appear in FIR," says Congress MP Varun Chaudhry in Senior IPS Officer Puran Kumar's suicide case
Punjab AAP MP wants fair probe into Haryana IPS officer's suicide
India vs USA: American mum says India is more 'resourceful and less wasteful' than the US
Health Tips - Consuming junk food causes these health problems, learn the full details
Skin Care Tips - Has the cold weather caused dry skin? Here's how to treat it.
