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
Education Ministry encourages inclusion of UPI in Schools under Digital transformation reforms for fee submission
Alwar man arrested for allegedly spying for Pakistan, sent on three-day police remand
Chefs agree on 1 ingredient to make the best-tasting gravy for a Sunday roast
Diane Keaton's closest friends unaware her health 'declined very suddenly'
All the 29 EU countries that will take your fingerprint from today
