LAW FOR ALL : No, fresh law students cannot directly become judges in India anymore. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, has reinstated and emphasized a crucial eligibility criterion: a minimum of 3 years of active legal practice as an advocate is now mandatory to apply for entry-level judicial posts (Civil Judge Junior Division / Judicial Magistrate).

No, fresh law students cannot directly become judges in India anymore.

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, has reinstated and emphasized a crucial eligibility criterion: a minimum of 3 years of active legal practice as an advocate is now mandatory to apply for entry-level judicial posts (Civil Judge Junior Division / Judicial Magistrate).

Here's a breakdown of what this means:

Before May 20, 2025: Some states in India allowed fresh law graduates (without prior practice experience) to appear for the Judicial Service Examinations (PCS-J) directly after obtaining their LLB degree.
After May 20, 2025 (and going forward): This is no longer the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that to ensure judicial maturity, practical courtroom exposure, and a better understanding of legal intricacies, a candidate must have at least three years of experience as a practicing advocate.

Key aspects of the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling:

Mandatory 3 Years Practice: This requirement applies to all candidates aspiring for entry-level judicial positions.
Law Clerkship Counts: Significantly, the Supreme Court clarified that experience as a law clerk to a judge will also count towards this three-year practice requirement. This provides a valuable pathway for fresh graduates to gain relevant experience within the judicial system.
Prospective Application: The ruling generally applies to recruitment processes notified after May 20, 2025. Ongoing recruitment processes that were notified before this date will proceed under the old rules.
Certification of Practice: The 3-year practice must be certified by a Principal District Judge (for trial court practitioners) or a Senior Advocate with 10+ years of standing, duly endorsed by a designated officer (for High Court/Supreme Court practitioners).
Mandatory Training: The Court also reiterated the importance of mandatory one-year training for newly appointed judicial officers before they preside over cases.

Why this change?

The Supreme Court and various High Courts expressed concerns that fresh law graduates, despite strong academic records, lacked the practical understanding of courtroom dynamics, procedural complexities, and the real-world implications of legal decisions. The mandatory practice period aims to equip aspiring judges with this essential practical grounding.

The revised path for a law student to become a judge in India:

Complete LLB: (3-year or 5-year integrated course).
Enroll with a State Bar Council: Obtain your Certificate of Practice.
Gain 3 Years of Legal Practice: This can be through active courtroom advocacy, legal aid, or a judicial clerkship with a judge.
Apply for State Judicial Service Exams (PCS-J): After fulfilling the practice requirement, one can apply for the competitive exams conducted by individual states.
Clear the Three-Tier Exam: Preliminary, Mains (written), and Viva Voce (interview).
Undergo Mandatory Judicial Training: A compulsory one-year training period at a Judicial Academy if selected.

In summary, while the LLB degree is the fundamental educational requirement, the path for "fresh law students" to become judges now includes a crucial interlude of practical legal experience.

2025 INSC 735

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019

WITH

I.A. NOS. 72900, 73015 AND 40695 OF 2021

WITH

I.A. NOS.50269 AND 201893 OF 2022

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION

AND OTHERS …PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

I. PREFACE ................................................................................3

II. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ....................................................6

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.................................................9

Issue No.1: As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited

Departmental Competitive Examination (for short,

‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e.

cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored to 25%

as determined by this Court in the case of All India

Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and

others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?......................9

Digitally signed by

POOJA SHARMA

Date: 2025.05.20

15:34:42 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

Issue No.2: As to whether the minimum qualifying experience

for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to

be reduced, and if so, by how many years?............20

Issue No.3: As to whether a quota needs to be reserved for

meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior

Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) so that there

is an incentive for merit in the cadre of Civil Judge

(Junior Division)? ...................................................29

Issue No.4: If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof

and what should be the minimum experience as a

Civil Judge (Junior Division)?.................................29

Issue No.5: As to whether the quota to be reserved for the

aforementioned departmental examinations in a

particular year should be calculated on the cadre

strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in

the particular recruitment year? ...........................31

Issue No.6: As to whether some suitability test should also be

introduced while promoting the Civil Judge (Senior

Division) to the Cadre of District Judges against the

existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial

Services on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. .........32

Issue No.7: As to whether the requirement of having minimum

three years practice for appearing in the

examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which

was done away by this Court in the case of All India

Judges Association & Ors. (supra), needs to be

restored? And if so, by how many years?...............38

Issue No.8: If the requirement of certain minimum years of

practice for appearing in the examination of Civil

Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should the same

be calculated from the date of the provisional

enrolment/registration or from the date of the

passing of the AIBE?..............................................38

IV. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS .........................................57

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

I. PREFACE

1. This batch of applications raises issues pertaining to

the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who

are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil

Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with

regard to the promotions at different levels within the

Judicial Services.

2. Before we consider the issues in light of the

submissions made on behalf of the various stakeholders, we

first set out below the prayers sought in the various

applications.

I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019

3. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) For clarification/directions whether the quota for

LDCE for induction in the West Bengal Higher

Judicial Service is to be maintained on the cadre

strength of District Judge (Entry Level) or on the

basis of the vacancies arising each year; or

(ii) In the alternative, modify the order dated 20th April

2010 passed in the writ petition by restoring the

share and/or quota for LDCE for introduction in

West Bengal Higher Judicial Service to 25% of the

cadre strength of District Judge (Entry Level) and by

granting liberty to the High Court at Calcutta to fill

up the vacancies for promotion on merit through

LDCE in such manner that 10% of the total

vacancies arising in a particular recruitment year is

earmarked for LDCE or else the object and/or

purpose of carving out such channel might be

frustrated in so far as State of West Bengal is

concerned.

I.A. NOS. 72900 AND 40695 OF 2021 AND I.A. NO.50269

OF 2022

4. These I.As. have been filed seeking directions in respect

of:

(i) Method of regular promotion (Objective Suitability

Test); and

(ii) Enhancement of percentage of quota for accelerated

promotion strictly on the basis of merit through

competitive examination for the post of District

Judges.

I.A. NO. 73015 OF 2021

5. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following relief:

(i) For modification of order dated 20th April 2010

passed in I.A. No.77 of 2000 in W.P.(C) No.1022 of

1989 (i.e. to increase and restore the quota to 25%

from 10% for accelerated promotion to the post of

District Judges) and to stay regular promotion

initiated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court until a

suitability test is conducted in terms of the judgment

dated 21st March 2002 passed by this Court.

I.A. NO. 201893 OF 2022

6. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Modify orders dated 21st March 2002 and 20th

April 2010 in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 to suitably

amend the LDCE eligibility conditions for all States

and Union Territories, so that the LDCE quota is

fully utilized; and

(ii) Modify the judgment and order dated 20th April

2010 in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989, to restore the

LDCE quota to 25% instead of 10%.

II. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

7. When the aforesaid IAs were listed before this Court on

25th April 2023, we had heard the learned amicus curiae as

well as the learned counsel for the various State

Governments and High Courts and found it necessary to

decide certain larger issues concerning the administration of

justice. We, therefore, framed the following seven issues for

consideration:

(i) As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited

Departmental Competitive Examination (for short,

‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e.

cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored to 25%

as determined by this Court in the case of All India

Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India

and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?

(ii) As to whether the minimum qualifying experience for

appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to be

reduced, and if so, by how many years?

(iii) As to whether a quota needs to be reserved for

meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior

Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) so that there

is an incentive for merit in the cadre of Civil Judge

(Junior Division)?

(iv) If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof

and what should be the minimum experience as a

Civil Judge (Junior Division)?

(v) As to whether the quota to be reserved for the

aforementioned departmental examinations in a

particular year should be calculated on the cadre

strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in

the particular recruitment year?

(vi) As to whether some suitability test should also be

introduced while promoting the Civil Judge (Senior

Division) to the Cadre of District Judges against the

existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial

Services on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.

(vii) As to whether the requirement of having minimum

three years practice for appearing in the examination

of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was done away

by this Court in the case of All India Judges

Association & Ors. (supra), needs to be restored?

And if so, by how many years?

8. On the next date of hearing i.e., 18th May 2023, another

issue (hereinafter referred to as, “Issue No.8”) was flagged by

learned Senior Counsel Shri B.H. Marlapalle for

consideration. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

“Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Counsel,

submitted that as per the Bar Council of India

Regulations, initially provisional registration is

required to be made for a period of 2 years. He

further submitted that only if a candidate passes

the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE), a permanent

registration can be granted. He further submitted

that while considering the issue as to whether a

minimum number of years of practice should be

made mandatory for permitting a candidate to

appear for the examination of Civil Judge (Junior

Division), it will also be necessary to take into

consideration the aforesaid Regulations of the Bar

Council of India.

We would also request the Union of India, all

the State Governments and the High Courts to

consider the aforesaid issue of Bar Council of India

Regulations, while considering as to whether a

minimum number of years of practice should be

made mandatory before applying for the post of Civil

Judge (Junior Division).”

9. It can thus be seen that Issue No.8 which was sought to

be raised was that: “If the requirement of certain minimum

years of practice for appearing in the examination of Civil

Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should the same be

calculated from the date of the provisional

enrolment/registration or from the date of passing of the AllIndia Bar Examination (AIBE)?”

10. On the said date of hearing i.e., 18th May 2023, this

Court has directed the Union of India, all the State

Governments and all the High Courts to furnish their

responses in form of an affidavit.

11. Accordingly, various State Governments as well as the

High Courts and the other stakeholders have filed their

affidavits. The learned amicus curiae has meticulously

tabulated the information as emerging from the said

affidavits and produced the same along with his

comprehensive note.

12. We have heard Shri Sidharth Bhatnagar, learned

amicus curiae and learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing

for the various stakeholders on several dates. By way of the

present judgment, we are deciding all the 8 issues.

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Issue No.1: As to whether the 10% quota reserved for

Limited Departmental Competitive

Examination (for short, ‘LDCE’) for

promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e.,

cadre of District Judge, needs to be

restored to 25% as determined by this

Court in the case of All India Judges’

Association and others v. Union of India

and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?

13. For considering the aforesaid issue, we will have to

consider the background for providing the reservation for

LDCE for promotion to Higher Judicial Service.

14. In pursuance to the directions given by this Court in the

judgment in the present proceedings dated 13th November

19911 (hereinafter referred to as “First AIJA Case”), the

Government of India by a resolution dated 21st March 1996

constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission

under the Chairmanship of Justice K.J. Shetty, Former

Judge of this Court (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty

Commission”). After thorough deliberations, the Shetty

Commission submitted its Report on 11th November 1999.

15. This Court, in the judgment in the present proceedings

dated 21st March 20022 (hereinafter referred to as “Third

AIJA Case”), considered various recommendations of the

Shetty Commission, and the responses made thereto by

various stakeholders. This Court considered the

recommendations made by the Shetty Commission that the

1 (1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1991 INSC 290

2 (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 INSC 165

recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e., the District

Judge Cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25% and

appointment on the basis of promotion should be 75%.

16. While considering this recommendation, this Court

observed thus:

“27. Another question which falls for consideration

is the method of recruitment to the posts in the

cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges

and Additional District Judges. At the present

moment, there are two sources for recruitment to

the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion

from amongst the members of the Subordinate

Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The

subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice

of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative,

like any other foundation, that it should become as

strong as possible. The weight on the judicial

system essentially rests on the subordinate

judiciary. While we have accepted the

recommendation of the Shetty Commission which

will result in the increase in the pay scales of the

subordinate judiciary, it is at the same time

necessary that the judicial officers, hard-working as

they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that

they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest

pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the

Shetty Commission has recommended the

establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very

necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion

that there has to be certain minimum standard,

objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter

the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District

Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the

Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the

Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge cadre

from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent

and the process of recruitment is to be by a

competitive examination, both written and viva

voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an

objective method of testing the suitability of the

subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the

Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there should

also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior

and other officers to improve and to compete with

each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion.

In this way, we expect that the calibre of the

members of the Higher Judicial Service will further

improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of

75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per

cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial

Service is maintained, we are, however, of the

opinion that there should be two methods as far as

appointment by promotion is concerned : 50 per

cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service

must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle

of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose, the High

Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to

ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those

candidates and to assess their continued efficiency

with adequate knowledge of case-law. The

remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service

shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of

merit through the limited departmental competitive

examination for which the qualifying service as a

Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than

five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule

in this regard.

28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we

direct that recruitment to the Higher Judicial

Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be:

(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from

amongst the Civil Judges (Senior

Division) on the basis of principle of

merit-cum-seniority and passing a

suitability test;

(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on

the basis of merit through limited

competitive examination of Civil Judges

(Senior Division) having not less than five

years' qualifying service; and

by direct recruitment from amongst the

eligible advocates on the basis of the

written and viva voce test conducted by

respective High Courts.

(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as

above by the High Courts as early as

possible.”

17. It can thus be seen that though this Court had

approved the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that

the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e., the

District Judge Cadre from amongst the advocates should be

25% and appointment by way of promotion should be 75%, it

opined that there should be two methods insofar as

appointment by promotion is concerned. This Court opined

that 50% of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service

must be filled up by promotion on the basis of principle of

merit-cum-seniority. This Court therefore directed that, for

the said purpose, the High Courts should devise and evolve a

test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of

those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency

with adequate knowledge of case-law. This Court further

directed that the remaining 25% of the posts in the service

shall be filled up by promotion strictly on the basis of merit

through LDCE. This Court further directed that, for being

entitled to appear in the said LDCE, the qualifying service as

a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than 5

years. This Court therefore directed the High Courts to frame

the necessary rules so as to implement the aforesaid

directions.

18. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the High

Courts had amended the Service Rules and 25% of the posts

of District Judges were reserved for being filled up through

LDCE. However, many of the High Courts found it difficult to

fill up 25% of posts through such a process. In some of the

States, as many as 50 posts of District Judges to be filled up

by such exercise remained vacant and there was no

alternative method provided by which these vacant posts

could be filled up. Though the Rules framed by some of the

High Courts provided that such unfilled posts could be filled

up by regular promotion, in some of the States no such Rules

were framed. Many of the States therefore were of the opinion

that the said 25% reservation needed to be reduced. Though

some of the States like Gujarat, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh,

Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh wanted that 25%

reservation for LDCE should be continued but they also

suggested that in case any post has remained unfilled in the

said LDCE quota, they be filled by regular promotion. Some

of the States also faced the difficulty that sufficient number

of candidates were not available for being promoted under

the LDCE category from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior

Division). This was so, because in such States even in normal

course, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) could be promoted

through the 50% quota for merit-cum-seniority before the

completion of his/her mandatory 5 years as a Civil Judge

(Senior Division) for the purpose of LDCE. This Court

therefore considered this issue in its judgment in the present

proceedings dated 20th April 20103 (hereinafter referred to as

“Fourth AIJA Case”). This Court found that a large number

of unfilled vacancies in the 25% LDCE category was not good

for judicial administration. Therefore, this Court found that it

was desirable that 25% quota reserved for LDCE be reduced

to 10%. This Court therefore issued the following directions:

“6. Having regard to various strategies available, we

are of the considered view that suitable amendment

3 (2010) 15 SCC 170

is to be made for this 25% quota of limited

departmental competitive examination. We are also

of the view, with the past experience, that it is

desirable that 25% quota be reduced to 10%. We

feel so as the required result, which was sought to

be achieved by this process could not be achieved,

thus it calls for modification.

7. Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the

cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by

limited departmental competitive examination with

those candidates who have qualified service of five

years as Civil Judge (Senior Division). Every year

vacancies are to be ascertained and the process of

selection shall be taken care of by the High Courts.

If any of the post is not filled up under 10% quota,

the same shall be filled up by regular promotion. In

some of the High Courts, process of selection of

these 25% quota by holding limited departmental

competitive examination is in progress, such

process can be continued and the unfilled seats, if

meritorious candidates are available, should be

filled up. But if for some reason the seats are not

filled up, they may be filled up by regular promotion

and apply the usual mode of promotion process.

Thus we pass the following order.

8. Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct

recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats are to be

filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior

Division) and 10% seats are to be filled up by

limited departmental competitive examination. If

candidates are not available for 10% seats, or are

not able to qualify in the examination then vacant

posts are to be filled up by regular promotion in

accordance with the Service Rules applicable.

9. All the High Courts are hereby directed to take

steps to see that existing Service Rules be amended

positively with effect from 1-1-2011. If the Rules are

not suitably amended, this order shall prevail and

further recruitment from 1-1-2011 shall be

continued accordingly as directed by us. The time

schedule prescribed in the order dated 4-1-2007

(in Malik Mazhar Sultan case [Malik Mazhar Sultan

(3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC

703 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 942] ) shall be strictly

adhered to for the purpose of selection. All the

vacancies are to be filled up in that particular year

and there shall not be any carry forward of the

unfilled posts.”

19. Accordingly, in pursuance to the directions issued by

this Court, the Recruitment Rules insofar as the recruitment

in the Cadre of District Judges were amended. The earlier

recruitment ratio of District Judge Cadre i.e., 50:25:25 for

promotion and direct recruitment, was modified to 65:10:25

and the quota for LDCE was reduced.

20. However, since with the passage of time, sufficient

number of candidates in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior

Division) were eligible to be promoted as District Judge

through LDCE, certain I.As. were filed before this Court for

restoring the said 10% quota to 25%.

21. In response to the directions issued by this Court vide

order dated 25th April 2023, various High Courts have filed

their responses.

22. From the data compiled by learned amicus curiae, it

would reveal that the High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Patna,

Kerala, Manipur, Madras and Uttarakhand have

recommended that the quota of LDCE be restored to 25%.

However, the High Courts of Gauhati, Andhra Pradesh,

Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab

& Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Calcutta, Delhi and

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh have recommended to retain

the same position.

23. It is further to be noted that even those High Courts

that have recommended that the LDCE quota to be restored

to 25%, have further recommended that if any seat remains

vacant, the same shall be filled up by regular promotion in

the same year.

24. We find that if the quota of LDCE is restored to 25% as

originally recommended in the Third AIJA Case, which was

reduced to 10% in the Fourth AIJA Case, it will provide an

incentive amongst the officers in the Cadre of Civil Judge

(Senior Division). It will also provide them with an

opportunity to get accelerated promotion in the Cadre of

District Judge if they are meritorious and deserving.

25. Another difficulty that has come to our notice is that

sufficient number of candidates are not available for

appearing in LDCE on account of requirement of having

minimum 5 years’ experience as Civil Judge (Senior Division)

which is prescribed as an eligibility criterion for appearing in

the LDCE for the Higher Judiciary.

26. In some of the States, a Judicial Officer who completes

about 5 years’ service in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior

Division), in normal course, becomes entitled to be promoted

in the Cadre of District Judge. We have already framed Issue

No.2 dealing with this very conundrum, which we are

considering immediately after this issue.

27. We find that in view of the answer that we propose for

Issue No.2, sufficient number of Judicial Officers from the

Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) would be available who

would be eligible for appearing in LDCE.

28. If, in a particular year sufficient candidates are not

selected from the LDCE quota, it will be appropriate that

such posts would revert back to the regular promotion quota

based on merit-cum-seniority, to be filled up in the same

year. Therefore, in such a case, we find that no adverse

impact on the administration of justice would occur even if

the LDCE quota is increased to 25%. In our view, this apart

from avoiding any adverse effect on administration of justice

due to sufficient number of seats not being filled up would

also ensure that no prejudice would be caused to the regular

promotees and at the same time, the said exercise would

provide an incentive to the meritorious Judicial Officers, if

their merit deserves the same.

Issue No.2: As to whether the minimum qualifying

experience for appearing in the aforesaid

examination needs to be reduced, and if

so, by how many years?

29. The difficulty of the requirement of having 5 years’

experience as Civil Judge (Senior Division) was noticed by

this Court in its order dated 19th April 2022 passed in the

present proceedings4 (hereinafter referred to as “Fifth AIJA

Case”). No doubt that the said decision of this Court

pertained only to the Delhi Judicial Services. After

considering the rival submissions, a three-Judges Bench of

this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member

observed thus:

“17. The very purpose for providing the channel of

promotion through LDCE was to provide an

incentive to the officers amongst the relatively junior

officers to improve and to compete with each other

so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In the

4 (2022) 7 SCC 494 : 2022 INSC 445

peculiar situation prevailing in the High Court of

Delhi, the very purpose is frustrated. We are,

therefore, of the considered view that in the peculiar

facts and circumstances, both IA No. 249 of 2009

and IA No. 89454 of 2021 deserve to be allowed.

18. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the High Court of Delhi has fairly stated

that the High Court of Delhi, on its own, has

reserved two seats for the present judicial officersapplicants so that their claims are not defeated by

passage of time or by delay in holding of the

examination.

19. In view of the submission made by Shri Rao, no

orders are necessary to be passed in IA No. 89450 of

2021, IA No. 44132 of 2022 in IAs Nos. 89450 and

88976 of 2021.

20. In the result, IA No. 89454 of 2021 filed by the

judicial officers-applicants and IA No. 249 of 2009

filed by the High Court of Delhi are allowed in the

following terms:

20.1. Para 28(1)(b) of the order dated 21-3-2002 [All

India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4

SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508] passed by this

Court, is modified and substituted as under:

“25% by promotion strictly on the basis of

merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having

7 years' qualifying service [5 years as Civil

Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as

Civil Judge (Senior Division)] or 10 years'

qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior

Division).”

20.2. Similarly, in the order dated 20-4-2010 [All

India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, (2010) 15 SCC

170 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 548] passed by this Court,

the direction in para 7 i.e. “Thus, we direct that

henceforth only 10% of the cadre strength of

District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental

Competitive Examination with those candidates who

have qualified service of five years as Civil Judge

(Senior Division)”, is modified and substituted as

under:

“Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10%

of the cadre strength of District Judges be

filled up by Limited Departmental

Competitive Examination with those

candidates who have qualified service of 7

years [5 years as Civil Judge (Junior

Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge

(Senior Division)] or 10 years' qualifying

service as Civil Judge (Junior Division).””

30. Though in the said order, this Court considered the

aforesaid requirement of 5 years’ experience, only insofar as

High Court of Delhi is concerned, from the responses we have

received from various High Courts and the State

Governments, we are of the view that the said requirement

requires reconsideration.

31. As can be seen from the affidavits filed, the High Courts

of Gauhati, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya

Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Sikkim,

Madras, Tripura, Calcutta and Jammu & Kashmir and

Ladakh have opposed the reduction of experience of 5 years.

The Governments of these States have also adopted the

suggestions made by their High Courts. However, the High

Court of Patna has recommended the qualifying service as a

Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be 3 years.

32. The State of Haryana has observed that the average

time taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to be eligible for

LDCE is 14 years. The State Government has therefore

recommended that the qualifying service as Civil Judge

(Senior Division) may be reduced to 2 or 3 years for being

eligible to appear for LDCE.

33. Insofar as the State of Kerala is concerned, both the

State Government and the High Court of Kerala have

recommended that the minimum requirement of having an

experience of 5 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) should

be brought down to 3 years.

34. High Court of Uttarakhand has recommended for

reducing the minimum qualifying service of 5 years to 2

years. Further, the High Court of Allahabad has also

recommended for reducing the minimum qualifying service of

5 years to 3 years.

35. Insofar as the States of Chhattisgarh and Manipur are

concerned, it appears that the State Governments and the

High Courts are not on the same pitch.

36. Insofar as the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned, the

State Government has given a positive opinion with regard to

amending the provision for reducing the minimum

requirement of having an experience of 5 years as a Civil

Judge (Senior Division) to 2 years. However, High Court of

Chhattisgarh has opposed for reduction of the minimum

qualifying experience.

37. The situation is converse insofar as State of Manipur is

concerned. In the State of Manipur, though the High Court

has recommended reduction of minimum experience from 5

years to 2 years, it has also recommended that the minimum

years of service as a Judicial Officer including that of a Civil

Judge (Junior Division) should not be less than 7 years.

However, the State of Manipur though has opposed such a

reduction, it has left the final decision to the wisdom of this

Court.

38. Insofar as the State of Gujarat is concerned, it has not

given any opinion. From the affidavit filed by the High Court

of Gujarat, it appears that there exists a completely

anomalous situation. Rule 5(3)(i) of the Gujarat State Judicial

Service Rules, 2005 provides that 2 years of qualifying service

as Civil Judge (Senior Division) is required for being eligible

for promotion in the cadre of District Judge against 65%

quota. However, Rule 5(3)(ii) of the said Rules provides that 5

years of qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) is

required for being eligible for promotion in the Cadre of

District Judge against 10% quota. In the affidavit of High

Court of Gujarat itself, it is stated that the said position has

been holding the field since the year 2005 and is working out

well. The position that emerges in the State of Gujarat

though is that, for being eligible for a promotional quota in a

regular course, only 2 years’ experience is required. However,

to compete from LDCE, which is supposed to be for the

purpose of providing incentive, a Judicial Officer must have 5

years’ service as Civil Judge (Senior Division). We find that

such a position is totally inconsistent with the idea of

providing an incentive to a meritorious Civil Judge (Senior

Division) to have an opportunity to get an accelerated

promotion to the Cadre of District Judge.

39. We find that it will be appropriate to compare the

position in some of the States with regard to average time

taken by a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to get eligible for

LDCE as against the average time taken by a Civil Judge

(Junior Division) to become a District Judge by regular

promotions. In this respect, a Chart was submitted by the

learned amicus curiae, extracted as under:

i. “Bihar

a) average time taken by a Civil Judge (JD) to be

eligible for LDCE - 9 to 10 years