{"id":3302,"date":"2025-08-29T15:31:30","date_gmt":"2025-08-29T10:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3302"},"modified":"2025-08-29T15:31:30","modified_gmt":"2025-08-29T10:01:30","slug":"constitution-bench-to-rule-on-timing-of-eligibility-for-district-judge-posts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/constitution-bench-to-rule-on-timing-of-eligibility-for-district-judge-posts\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitution Bench to Rule on Timing of Eligibility for District Judge Posts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rejanish K.V. vs. K. Deepa & Others, 2025<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020<\/p>\n

(CJI B.R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ)<\/p>\n

The Appellant, Mr. Rejanish K.V., a practising\u00a0lawyer\u00a0with\u00a0more\u00a0than\u00a0seven years’\u00a0experience at the Bar,\u00a0sought\u00a0direct recruitment as a District Judge under the\u00a0“Bar quota”\u00a0(reserved for\u00a0persons\u00a0not already in service) in Kerala.\u00a0Concurrently, He also\u00a0sought\u00a0the\u00a0junior\u00a0judiciary\u00a0position\u00a0of Munsiff\u2013Magistrate.\u00a0While\u00a0going through\u00a0the\u00a0process\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0selection\u00a0for District Judge, the Appellant was\u00a0posted\u00a0as a Munsiff\u2013Magistrate on 28th December, 2017.\u00a0Subsequently, the Appellant was\u00a0appointed\u00a0as District Judge,\u00a0relieved from\u00a0judicial service on 21st August, 2019, and\u00a0joined\u00a0duty\u00a0on 24th August, 2019.<\/p>\n

Another\u00a0aspirant, K. Deepa,\u00a0objected\u00a0to\u00a0this appointment in the Kerala High Court. She\u00a0contended\u00a0that the Appellant was\u00a0serving\u00a0in judicial service\u00a0when\u00a0appointed\u00a0and\u00a0hence\u00a0disqualified\u00a0under Article 233(2) of the Constitution\u00a0based\u00a0on\u00a0the Supreme Court\u00a0case law, Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020).<\/em> That\u00a0ruling\u00a0laid\u00a0down the principle\u00a0that an advocate\u00a0had\u00a0to\u00a0keep\u00a0practising\u00a0up\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0date of the\u00a0appointment\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0eligible\u00a0under the Bar quota.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0single judge of\u00a0the Kerala High Court\u00a0set\u00a0aside\u00a0the Appellant’s appointment. The division bench\u00a0confirmed\u00a0the single judge’s\u00a0ruling\u00a0but\u00a0noted\u00a0that\u00a0many\u00a0similar appointments\u00a0all\u00a0over\u00a0India,\u00a0subject\u00a0to\u00a0different\u00a0state\u00a0regulations,\u00a0could\u00a0be\u00a0contrary\u00a0to\u00a0that precedent.\u00a0It\u00a0thus\u00a0certified the\u00a0case\u00a0as\u00a0being one\u00a0involving a substantial question of law of general importance\u00a0and\u00a0gave\u00a0the parties leave to approach the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Central\u00a0Problem\u00a0of\u00a0Law\u00a0in front of\u00a0the Supreme Court was whether\u00a0or not\u00a0a judicial officer who\u00a0had\u00a0over\u00a0seven years at the Bar\u00a0before\u00a0entry\u00a0into\u00a0judicial service\u00a0is\u00a0eligible\u00a0for direct recruitment\u00a0under\u00a0Article 233(2)\u00a0in case,\u00a0upon\u00a0appointment, they were already in service.\u00a0As\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0reading\u00a0of Article 233(2), the\u00a0rule\u00a0requires\u00a0that only those\u00a0“not already in the service of the Union or of the State”,\u00a0with at least seven years as an advocate or pleader, and recommended by the High Court,\u00a0can\u00a0be\u00a0appointed\u00a0as\u00a0District\u00a0Judges\u00a0from the Bar.\u00a0The\u00a0most\u00a0contentious\u00a0issue\u00a0was whether\u00a0the\u00a0eligibility\u00a0was\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0tested\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0date\u00a0of application,\u00a0appointment, or both. If\u00a0the application date\u00a0alone is significant, the Appellant\u00a0could\u00a0qualify\u00a0even\u00a0if\u00a0he joined\u00a0service later. If\u00a0it is\u00a0the\u00a0date of\u00a0appointment\u00a0that\u00a0is\u00a0determinative\u00a0(as\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0in Dheeraj Mor), he\u00a0is\u00a0disqualified\u00a0since\u00a0he was a serving judicial officer\u00a0at that time.<\/p>\n

Requirement Under Article 145(3):\u00a0The\u00a0case\u00a0at\u00a0hand involves\u00a0a\u00a0“substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution,”\u00a0compelling\u00a0the\u00a0obligatory\u00a0requirement\u00a0of\u00a0a five-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.\u00a0Even\u00a0though\u00a0a three-judge bench\u00a0gave\u00a0the\u00a0decision in\u00a0Dheeraj Mor, the\u00a0current\u00a0questions\u00a0necessitate\u00a0reconsideration\u00a0by a full Bench. The Supreme Court\u00a0ruled\u00a0that the\u00a0question\u00a0involved\u00a0touches\u00a0on\u00a0substantial\u00a0constitutional interpretation and\u00a0requires\u00a0referral\u00a0to a five-judge Constitution Bench.<\/p>\n

The final decision is pending before the full constitutional bench.<\/p>\n

This case is\u00a0significant, with\u00a0implications\u00a0for all-India import\u00a0for appointments to the judiciary under Article 233(2). It\u00a0poses\u00a0basic\u00a0questions\u00a0regarding\u00a0when eligibility is\u00a0determined\u00a0and whether judicial service\u00a0comes\u00a0into disqualifies otherwise eligible advocates. The\u00a0judgment,\u00a0awaiting\u00a0delivery\u00a0by\u00a0a Constitution Bench, will\u00a0decide\u00a0how states can\u00a0cope\u00a0with\u00a0Bar-quota District Judge appointments,\u00a0define\u00a0eligibility criteria, and\u00a0arguably\u00a0impact\u00a0many\u00a0past and future recruitment\u00a0orders.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u00a0lawyer\u00a0with\u00a0more\u00a0than\u00a0seven years’\u00a0experience at the Bar,\u00a0sought\u00a0direct recruitment as a District Judge under the\u00a0“Bar quota”\u00a0(reserved for\u00a0persons\u00a0not already in service) in Kerala.\u00a0Concurrently, He also\u00a0sought\u00a0the\u00a0junior\u00a0judiciary\u00a0position\u00a0of Munsiff\u2013Magistrate.\u00a0While\u00a0going through\u00a0the\u00a0process\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0selection\u00a0for District Judge, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3304,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3302"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3302\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3306,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3302\/revisions\/3306"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3304"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}