Supreme Court refuses to relax eligibility rules for court staff seeking recruitment to judicial service

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant serving court employees a one-time relaxation from the mandatory legal practice requirement for recruitment to the entry-level judicial services.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed applications filed by 21 court employees from Karnataka seeking the benefit of the relaxation granted by the Court in August this year.

"You cannot make judicial service a promotional post for other cadres," CJI Kant observed.

The dispute is connected to the Supreme Court's earlier decision in All India Judges Association v Union of India, which had restored the requirement of three years' legal practice for entry-level judicial service recruitment.

However, the rules were subsequently modified in Bhumika Trust v Union of India, with the Court permitting candidates having one year's actual practice to enter judicial service subject to additional training.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the applicants, argued that different States were interpreting the Bhumika Trust judgment differently.

He pointed out that Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Maharashtra continue to permit recruitment of serving court employees through separate channels, while Karnataka excluded them following the Supreme Court's ruling.

Sondhi submitted that the applicants, including bench clerks and judgment writers, possess considerable experience in court administration and should not be rendered ineligible merely because they have not practised as advocates.

However, Justice Mohana observed,

"Court clerks, bench clerks, everybody. They do work that lawyers cannot do. But they cannot be treated as a channel for promotion."

CJI Kant explained that the relaxation had been framed after considering the difficulties faced by young candidates, particularly women.

He referred to interactions with women students at law universities who had explained that a prolonged practice requirement could create difficulties, including when they relocated after marriage.

Sondhi maintained that the position of serving court employees was different. He argued that the absence of a uniform approach had created an anomalous situation.

The CJI disagreed, observing that the eligibility requirements prescribed by the Supreme Court were clear.

The Court also emphasised that recruitment rules for judicial service must be framed in consultation with the High Courts concerned. It noted that consultation in such matters has been construed as concurrence to safeguard judicial independence.

Sondhi eventually sought a one-time relaxation for serving employees, pointing out that recruitment processes in several States were still pending.

However, the Court was not convinced.

"As of now, we would not like to relax this condition. No reason to modify our judgment. Dismissed," the CJI said.

When Sondhi sought clarification that States remained free to frame their own policies, Justice Bagchi remarked,

"We are minded to injunct the States."

The applications were accordingly dismissed.

[Read Live Coverage]