The Madras High Court Friday reserved its order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a 2018 notification issued by the Tamil Nadu government that permitted law graduates who have not enrolled with the Bar Council to apply for the post of civil judge..A Bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice PD Audikesavalu reserved its order in the PIL filed by lawyer M Radhakrishnan..The PIL challenges a notification issued by the State government on April 9, 2018 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of civil judge under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 2007.The said notification invited applications from "fresh law graduates, even those who had not completed their enrolment with the Bar Council of India." The petitioner said that prior to the notification, candidates needed to have practiced at the Bar for a minimum of three years. He argued that a fresh law graduate, who is yet to see the inside of a courtroom and has no practical experience, must not be held eligible for the post of a civil judge..On the other hand, the State government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) argued that the amendment to the eligibility criteria had been made to introduce fresh talent into the State judiciary. They also argued that the enrolment process was a time-taking one and so a law graduate must not be made to miss a chance to apply to the post merely because he or she was yet to enrol.The idea behind the change was that several bright students from reputable law colleges across the country should not be deprived merely on the ground of three years' experience at the Bar, the Commission said..The High Court, however, said that there was a difference between Bar practice for three years and enrolment. It asked the State what the difficulty was in making enrolment mandatory for one to apply for vacancies in the State judiciary."You might have the qualifications, but you must also go enrol with the Bar Council. What is the difficulty in that? We are also aware that a person who is enrolled might not practice. But the requirement of enrolment can still be there," the High Court said.Advocate M Radhakrishnan appeared in person and Advocate B Vijay appeared for the TNPSC.