The recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Gujarat and Karnataka has been put on hold as both High Courts await the Supreme Court’s verdict on whether a minimum practice requirement as a lawyer should be mandatory for applicants.
The matter was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih. During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj informed the Court that notifications had been issued to halt the recruitment process in light of the pending judgment.
The Court took note of the submissions and recorded in its order:
"The learned ASG submits that insofar as High Court of Karnataka is concerned, the High Court of Karnataka has already put the selection process in abeyance in order to await the decision of this Court with regard to providing minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer as a pre-condition for appearing for the exam of Civil Judge (Junior Division). He further states that insofar as High Court of Gujarat is concerned, the procedure is stayed by this Court...a similar notification is already issued. In that view of the matter, nothing remains for consideration in the IAs."
This decision aligns with the broader discussion on whether fresh law graduates should be eligible for judicial service or if prior legal practice should be a prerequisite.
Background of the Case
The issue of requiring a minimum practice period for judicial recruitment has been a point of contention. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court revisited the question of whether candidates should have at least three years of practice as an advocate before applying for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. This requirement was removed in 2002 following the All India Judges Association case.
On March 4, the Supreme Court stayed the recruitment process for the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts in Gujarat. The Court expressed concern over the Gujarat High Court allowing recruitment to proceed without imposing a minimum practice requirement.
A major point of contention arose from the Gujarat Public Service Commission’s (GPSC) advertisement for the recruitment of Civil Judges, which did not specify any minimum practice requirement for candidates. This prompted the Supreme Court to intervene and question the rationale behind allowing fresh graduates to apply without any legal experience.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Assess Private Schools' Financial Status on Fee Refund Issue
The Supreme Court, while reserving judgment on the matter, stated that the High Court should not have proceeded with the recruitment process while the issue remained under consideration.
The case has significant implications for judicial appointments in India. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of reinstating the minimum practice condition, aspiring judicial officers will need prior experience at the Bar before applying for entry-level judicial positions. Conversely, if the Court decides otherwise, fresh law graduates may continue to apply directly without prior legal practice.
The legal fraternity is closely watching the outcome of this case, as it will shape the future of judicial recruitment and the eligibility criteria for judicial service in India.
Case Reference: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989
