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
When is the right time to give your baby yogurt? A pediatrician explains how much yogurt you should give your baby per day..
Police station with cells selling for £95,000 - it could become a 6-bedroom home
Top 10 food terms used by Gen Z revealed - and you might need a dictionary
Warning to anyone hoping to retire before 66
I found the cheapest Halloween pumpkins at Tesco, Asda, Morrisons Aldi and Lidl
