Seven Years Of Continuous Practice Mandatory: Orissa High Court On Eligibility Criteria For District Judge Recruitment

A writ petition was filed by the petitioner- a former advocate turned Assistant Public Prosecutor, seeking a direction to include her in the list of eligible candidates for the recruitment examination to the post of District Judge from the Bar in 2023.

The petitioner applied for the position of District Judge from the Bar in 2023. However, her name was not included in the list of eligible candidates, leading her to file a writ petition.

A Division Bench of Justice D. Dash and Justice G. Satapathy said, “merely because a person was inadvertently allowed earlier to appear in the examination, who was not eligible, confers no right on him or her to appear in the exam by contending interalia that the authorities have allowed him/her to appear in the exam earlier, especially when he/she does not possess the requisite eligibility.”

The Court held, “in this case, the advertisement issued by the High Court of Orissa clearly spell out one of the eligibility criterias for the candidature as “be having at least seven years practice as an advocate as on 1st April, 2023”. Adhering to the aforesaid eligibility condition, when the case of the Petitioner is considered, she is found not eligible for want of seven years continuous practice as an advocate as on 1st April, 2023.”

Advocate S. Das appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate S.N. Das appeared for the Respondent.

The petitioner had argued that she was allowed to sit in the recruitment examination in previous years and should not be disqualified this time. She cited principles of estoppel and acquiescence to support her case.

The Opposite Party contended that the petitioner lacked the required seven years of continuous practice as an advocate, a prerequisite for eligibility. This is based on instructions, an experience certificate, and a notification of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The Court examined the eligibility criteria for the position of District Judge, emphasizing the necessity of seven years of continuous practice as an advocate immediately preceding the application.

The Court cites precedents, including the decision in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik, to support the interpretation that eligibility requires continuous practice as an advocate up to the cutoff date.

The Court concluded that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria and dismissed the writ petition. It emphasized that the petitioner's earlier participation in the examination does not confer a right to appear if the eligibility criteria are not met.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

Cause Title: Trupti Mayee Patra v. Registrar, Examination, Orissa High Court

Click here to read/download Order