Supreme Court Allows Law Graduates Not Fulfilling 3-Year Practice Requirement To Participate In Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Exam
The Supreme Court yesterday provisionally permitted all law graduates, who were earlier barred for not meeting the mandatory prerequisite of three years of advocacy practice, specifically those law graduates who fell short of achieving a minimum aggregate of 70% marks in their LL.B. examination, to partake in the Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Entry Level) Recruitment Examination in Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan were dealing with a Special Leave Petition challenging the vires of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. Rule 7(g) mandated a prerequisite of 3 years of practice as an advocate for law graduates who did not achieve a minimum aggregate of 70% marks in their LL.B. examination, as a condition for eligibility in recruitment to the subordinate judiciary as Civil Judges.
Senior Advocates S. K. Gangele and Raju Ramachandran appeared for the Petitioners, Senior Advocate S. Murlidhar appeared for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while Additional Advocate General Saurabh Mishra appeared for the State.
The Apex Court had on December 14, 2023, sought the response of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and requested the assistance of the Registrar General to represent. Accordingly, Senior Advocate Murlidhar, representing the High Court, apprised the Bench that the High Court shall allow all the candidates to participate in the Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Entry Level) Recruitment Examination – 2022 without insisting on having the amended qualification specified in Rule 7(g) and the proviso thereto of the Amended Rules.
Murlidhar submitted, "High Court shall allow all the candidates to participate for Civil Judge, Jr. Division (Entry Level) Recruitment Examination – 2022 in furtherance to the Advertisement dated 17.11.2023, who possess the eligibility as per the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, as stood prior to the date of amendment i.e. 23.06.2023, without insisting to have the amended qualification specified in Rule 7(g) and the proviso thereto of the Amended Rules."
The Bench was further apprised by Senior Advocate Murlidhar that the order passed by this Court shall be uploaded on the website of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and, if necessary, a corrigendum will be issued and shall be widely publicized in the daily newspapers, thereby the candidates may not lose their chance to apply online prior to the last date of submission of Application Forms i.e. December 18, 2023.
Accordingly, noting the submissions, the Bench ordered, "In view of the statement made by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court, we provisionally permit all the candidates to fill up the Application Forms (including those who have not approached the court) and provisionally permit to participate in the Preliminary and written examination, subject to outcome of the challenge to the vires of Rules before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh."
The Court also in its order noted, "Learned senior counsel further submits that the case shall be heard by the High Court and disposed of in the Judicial Side, as far as possible by the end of February, 2024. The above statement made by learned senior counsel is taken on record. In terms of the said statement, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of."
Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed on similar grounds challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Rule 7(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 1994 on the basis of the precedent set in the third All India Judges Association Case, whereby the Supreme Court eliminated the requirement of three years practice as an advocate for a candidate to be eligible for recruitment in the subordinate judicial service at the entry-level.
The PIL filed by Advocate Vivek Sharma through the Advocate-on-Record Jasmine Damkewala stated that a profound twofold change was introduced making three years of standing as an Advocate compulsory for students who had secured less than 70% marks in their aggregate in their LL.B. examination or not passed all LL.B papers in the first attempt (50% for reserved category).
It was submitted in the PIL that, "The amendment also created a privileged class of students having a brilliant academic career in contrast with the bulk majority who were to be treated as plain or ordinary and who were not even to be permitted to compete in the selection process for three years but to bid their time by enrolling themselves at the Bar and practice as an Advocate, whether they have a single brief in their hands or not."
Cause Title: Monika Yadav & Ors. v. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 27337 of 2023 & connected matters]
