Rejanish K.V. vs. K. Deepa & Others, 2025
Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020
(CJI B.R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ)
The Appellant, Mr. Rejanish K.V., a practising lawyer with more than seven years’ experience at the Bar, sought direct recruitment as a District Judge under the “Bar quota” (reserved for persons not already in service) in Kerala. Concurrently, He also sought the junior judiciary position of Munsiff–Magistrate. While going through the process of the selection for District Judge, the Appellant was posted as a Munsiff–Magistrate on 28th December, 2017. Subsequently, the Appellant was appointed as District Judge, relieved from judicial service on 21st August, 2019, and joined duty on 24th August, 2019.
Another aspirant, K. Deepa, objected to this appointment in the Kerala High Court. She contended that the Appellant was serving in judicial service when appointed and hence disqualified under Article 233(2) of the Constitution based on the Supreme Court case law, Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020). That ruling laid down the principle that an advocate had to keep practising up to the date of the appointment to be eligible under the Bar quota.
The single judge of the Kerala High Court set aside the Appellant’s appointment. The division bench confirmed the single judge’s ruling but noted that many similar appointments all over India, subject to different state regulations, could be contrary to that precedent. It thus certified the case as being one involving a substantial question of law of general importance and gave the parties leave to approach the Supreme Court.
The Central Problem of Law in front of the Supreme Court was whether or not a judicial officer who had over seven years at the Bar before entry into judicial service is eligible for direct recruitment under Article 233(2) in case, upon appointment, they were already in service. As per the reading of Article 233(2), the rule requires that only those “not already in the service of the Union or of the State”, with at least seven years as an advocate or pleader, and recommended by the High Court, can be appointed as District Judges from the Bar. The most contentious issue was whether the eligibility was to be tested on the date of application, appointment, or both. If the application date alone is significant, the Appellant could qualify even if he joined service later. If it is the date of appointment that is determinative (as it was in Dheeraj Mor), he is disqualified since he was a serving judicial officer at that time.
Requirement Under Article 145(3): The case at hand involves a “substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution,” compelling the obligatory requirement of a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Even though a three-judge bench gave the decision in Dheeraj Mor, the current questions necessitate reconsideration by a full Bench. The Supreme Court ruled that the question involved touches on substantial constitutional interpretation and requires referral to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The final decision is pending before the full constitutional bench.
This case is significant, with implications for all-India import for appointments to the judiciary under Article 233(2). It poses basic questions regarding when eligibility is determined and whether judicial service comes into disqualifies otherwise eligible advocates. The judgment, awaiting delivery by a Constitution Bench, will decide how states can cope with Bar-quota District Judge appointments, define eligibility criteria, and arguably impact many past and future recruitment orders.
