Punjab & Haryana High Court junks fresh challenge to 50-cases-a-year criterion to become district court judge

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday rejected a fresh challenge to the eligibility criteria requiring advocates to have conducted at least 50 cases in each of the past 3 years in order to qualify for appointment to the Superior Judicial Service [Kanu Sharma v High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others].

A Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry noted that a co-ordinate bench has upheld the constitutional validity of the rules in Punjab and Haryana. The Court added that the earlier verdict has attained finality since it was not challenged by anyone. 

"The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has not given us any ground to take a different view than the view taken by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rajender Prasad and others vs State of Haryana...In view of the above, it would be appropriate to give a quietus to the matter...Accordingly, there is no substance in the present petition,” the Court said while dismissing the plea. 

Advocate Kanu Sharma had challenged the Rule11(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The Court was told that a similar rule exists in Punjab.

The rule states the following about the eligibility:

“Must be an income tax assessee for at least three assessment years preceding the date of application, with gross professional income of not less than rupees five lakhs per annum. The applicant shall also be required to attach the proof of his independent engagement and conducting of not less than fifty cases (other than bunch cases) per year in the preceding three years.”

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji, representing the High Court, submitted that a challenge to the rule was dismissed last year by a Division Bench of the High Court. He added that the decision has not been challenged before the Supreme Court.

Counsel representing the petitioner, however, argued that the validity of the rule can still be questioned and requested that the matter be referred to a larger bench.

"A candidate who has conducted 49 cases, will she become ineligible for the ADJ exam. She (petitioner) is a legal aid counsel at the High Court and she has experience, takes litigation at multiple forums but she has less than 50 cases ... 36 cases," the counsel added.

However, the Court said that a specific number of cases will always be a criterion.

"Every time it is placed, then you will question it that why 10, why 20, why 30, why 40?"...somewhere a boundary has to be there. There is always cutoff for age...how do we take a different view? [from earlier bench]".

The Court refused to accept the argument that the rule is contrary to Article 233, which requires an advocate to have at least seven years practice to be a district judge.

"That [additional criteria] can always be laid down by the High Court for ensuring merit," the Bench said.

When the counsel said someone can have 49 cases per year, Chief Justice Nagu remarked that such a hypothetical "would be bad luck".

"If we place at 30, someone will say I have 29.. that is sheer bad luck. In competitive exams, it happens. There has to be some bar," the Court said as it dismissed the plea.