Madhya Pradesh High Court seeks clarity on National Judicial Academy notice restricting Law Associate post to 5-year law grads

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the National Judicial Academy (NJA) in a plea challenging a notification stating that only fresh five-year law course graduates could apply for the post of Law Associate..Though the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that the NJA could choose its employment criteria, it sought clarification on the term "fresh" graduates in the notification."I think the employer can choose whatever employee he wants. If he is particular with respect to a five-year course, then you cannot say that it is constitutionally invalid...what is amusing in this notification is that it says 'fresh'...what they meant by fresh we don't know...we are issuing them notice not because we agree with your argument, but because we are amused by this term 'fresh'.".The Court was hearing a petition filed by a three-year law course graduate challenging an employment notification dated January 1, 2024 issued by the NJA, which allowed only "fresh" five-year law graduates to apply for the post of Law Associate/Researcher..The petitioner contended that the prescribed qualification violates the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The distinction between three-year and five-year law graduates lacks a rational basis and therefore the classification is contrary to the object sought to be achieved, the plea alleged.She thus prayed that the notification be set aside and that three-year law course graduates be allowed to apply for the post..During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued,"At the end of the day, a student who has come out of a five-year law degree or a three-year law degree, both have the same right to be employed...they are all advocates at the end of the day."To this, the Bench replied, "Don't they (NJA) have the right to fix their own standards?".The Court then asked the counsel to produce orders from other courts suggesting that the three-year law course and the five-year law course were the same."Show us the judicial pronouncement that it is the same...the distinction can't be the same...how can it be the same?" it asked.The counsel replied,"The only difference is that the fee in five-year law school is much much higher than three-year law school and that is the reason many students do not take five-year law course...it will create an inferiority complex...and why this discrimination...research is something which can be taken equally well by ant law graduate," she added.Advocate Anuja Pethia appeared for the petitioner.