Karnataka HC to hear plea alleging candidate without required law practice was made District Judge

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a petition alleging that a candidate recently appointed as a District Judge through a direct recruitment drive for candidates who are practicing lawyers, did not have the required years of legal practice for such an appointment [Chetana Parutabadi v High Court of Karnataka and ors].

The Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice CM Poonacha sought a response from the High Court (its administrative side, represented by its Registrar General) on a plea filed by advocate Chetana Parutabadi, who has questioned the appointment of one Geeta Shinde as a District Judge.

The case concerns a direct recruitment drive initiated in 2023 to select District Judges against 14 vacancies for candidates with at least seven years of continuous legal practice as a lawyer.

Of the advertised vacancies, one post was earmarked for a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate and an additional post was reserved for SC candidates with benchmark disabilities.

Pursuant to the recruitment drive, Judge Shinde was appointed a District Judge under the SC quota.

The petitioner, Parutabadi, however, claims that Shinde does not possess the required seven years of continuous practice as an advocate to be appointed as a District Judge through such direct recruitment.

In this regard, Parutabadi claims that Shinde had taken a break from legal practice and was serving as a full-time Assistant Professor of Law at a law college between 2019 and 2022.

The appointment of Shinde as a District Judge has, therefore, taken away another eligible SC candidate’s opportunity to be appointed to the post, the petitioner argues.

Parutabadi also alleges that Shinde had served as a salaried law faculty member at a law college in violation of the Bar Council of India's (BCI) rules.

In this regard, the petition argues that under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, an advocate cannot practice while in salaried employment.

The petitioner claims that Shinde served as a salaried faculty member while also maintaining her name in Bar Council records as a practicing lawyer. The petitioner has, therefore, accused Shinde of violating BCI rules that prohibit practicing lawyers from holding salaried employment.

In view of these alleged irregularities, the petitioner has urged the Court  to quash the November 2024 order appointing Shinde as a judge and to issue a fresh notification for filling the District Judge post

The petition, filed through Advocate Nithin Gowda JR, has been listed for further hearing on January 29, 2026.