The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, on September 16, 2025, dismissed a series of petitions filed by young law graduates, prosecutors, and government legal officers who had sought permission to participate in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment process. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha along with Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that the petitions were ''misconceived, misdirected, and devoid of merit,'' refusing to interfere with the eligibility criteria prescribed under law.
Background
The dispute stemmed from an amendment notified on July 5, 2024, to the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The amendment required candidates to not only hold a law degree but also be enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. Petitioners argued this unfairly excluded Prosecuting Officers and certain law graduates who were otherwise eligible.
Read Also : Supreme Court to Hear Plea for Reserved NEET-PG Seats for Transgender Candidates Before Counselling Starts
The Public Service Commission's advertisement dated December 23, 2024, repeated the requirement, further fueling resentment among aspirants. When several of them failed to download their admit cards ahead of the September 21, 2025 preliminary exam, they rushed to court.
Court's Observations
Petitioners' counsel contended that the amendment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, discriminating between advocates in private practice and government prosecutors. They relied heavily on past Supreme Court rulings, including Deepak Agarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and the more recent All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), which had clarified certain aspects of eligibility.
On the other side, the State and the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) maintained that the eligibility rules were framed within legislative competence and in line with the Supreme Court's directions.
The bench, after reviewing prior litigation including Vinita Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, noted that the apex court in May 2025 had expressly mandated a minimum three years' practice requirement for Civil Judge aspirants. It further reminded that recruitment must proceed under the rules prevailing on the date of advertisement, not later amendments.
''The petitioners cannot interpret the Supreme Court’s observations to suit their convenience, ''
The bench observed, adding that the July 2024 rule mandating advocate enrollment was valid when the recruitment notification was issued. The judges underlined that mere disagreement with policy choices of the legislature cannot justify striking down statutory provisions.
Read Also : Bar Council Suspends Two Chandigarh Lawyers After Alleged Assault on PHHCBA Officials and Sword Incident
Decision
Concluding that the pleas were an attempt to ''secure a backdoor entry into judicial service,'' the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions (WPS No. 11089, 11093, and 11096 of 2025) without costs. With this, the road for the scheduled Civil Judge examination remains clear, leaving the aggrieved petitioners with no relief from the High Court.
Case Tittle : Himalaya Ravi & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case Number : WPS No. 11089 of 2025, WPS No. 11093 of 2025, WPS No. 11096 of 2025
