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
Travis Kelce's relative's unlikely reaction to raunchy Taylor Swift song
Haryana IAS Officers' Association demands thorough investigation into IPS Y Puran Kumar's death case
India announces new healthcare projects for Afghanistan, gifts 20 ambulances during Taliban minister's visit
Andhra Pradesh clinches $10 billion Google investment
Pilots' body demands grounding of Air India 787s after electrical snags
