Advocates Need Not Maintain Continuous Practice For Judicial Service Eligibility: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The case was brought by petitioner challenging the selection of an Advocate who had a similar exam score but had briefly served as a District Legal Officer and Civil Judge-II in Madhya Pradesh. He had previously faced disqualification in Delhi for lacking continuous practice and had contested this decision unsuccessfully.

A Bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya said, “There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post.”

Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan appeared for the Petitioner and Senior Advocate J.L. Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondents.

The Court emphasized that Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of advocates as district judges, does not mandate continuous practice of seven years. This ruling contradicts a previous decision by the Delhi High Court, which upheld the necessity for continuous practice.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court acknowledged the Advocate’s non-continuous practice but noted his cumulative active practice periods from 2012 to 2015 and 2018 to 2022, totaling over seven years. The Court added, “He thus possesses cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice. Thus he is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge as per Rule 5 (c).”

Regarding a disputed "Note" under Rule 5(c) allowing judicial service experience to count towards advocacy experience, the Court referenced a Supreme Court ruling that such inclusion was impermissible. Despite this, the Court affirmed the appointment while quashing the disputed Note.

The Court said, “Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed in all respects except to the extent that “Note” below clause (c) of Rule 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 (permitting counting of Judicial service of a candidate towards counting of 7 years practice as Advocate for being eligible to be appointed as Additional District Judge) is declared unenforceable and struck down.”

Cause Title: Sandeep Sharma v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., [2024:HHC:4938]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate Sohail Khan

Respondents: Senior Advocate J.L. Bhardwaj, with Advocates Komal Chaudhary, Arsh Rattan, Prateek Gupta, Praveen Chandel and Ashwani Sharma