Case: Sunil Kumar Verma vs the State of Patna
Sunil Kumar Verma is an advocate. He enrolled himself in the competitive exam of District Judge. During the examination, he was not practising as an advocate, so he got rejected for the position of District Judge.
Facts of the Case
Mr Verma was a practising advocate in Allahabad State High Court from 5th December 2007 to 5th December 2017. In these 10 years, he was also giving competitive exams, such as District Judge (Entry Level) from different states. On 22nd August 2016, there was a published advertisement for the employment of District Judge. There were also some terms and conditions, which were that an advocate should have 7 years of experience. Moreover, he/she should have appeared in 24 cases per annum, he/she remains as a practising advocate on all three exams, and also on the date of his appointment, he/she should be between 35 to 50 years of age. On 31st August 2016, the Petitioner registered himself for the said post. But on 16th January 2016, the Petitioner also registered himself in UP Judicial Services. he joined that service. According to the requirements, he was not practising during exams and at the time of appointment.
Arguments of Petitioner
He claimed that on the cut of date, he was possessing the essential qualification of 7 years. He also stated that the cases presented are quite different from the actual situation. Counsel submitted that he can’t become ineligible for the post of District Judge if he is in Judicial Service. The judgment given in mentioned cases does not apply here. The Petitioner wasn’t practising but he was still an advocate at the time of appointment, so, the Bar prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India will not come into operation.
Arguments of Respondent
Learned Counsel submitted two fields have been given for recruitment and appointment. One is for Judicial Officers who are already in judicial service. Another is for direct recruitment from the bar for the post of District Judge. So the person has to be an advocate with 7 years of experience. and also at the time of examinations and also at the time of appointment. It was argued that the word ‘appointment’ under Article 233 of the Constitution of India would take its colour and interpretation.
People who are in advocate field have to remain as an advocate, they can’t change between the process. People who are in the Judicial field should be appointed by way of promotion. Judicial Officers can’t stake a claim of their past experiences. In this present case, the Petitioner didn’t remain an advocate on the cut-off date and at the time of submission. Now, the Petitioner cannot claim to be an advocate again. Petitioner’s plea was rejected.
The Court agreed with the respondent’s arguments. It was very clear that the Petitioner cannot stake a claim of being appointed as a District Judge as the Petitioner was not a practising advocate at the time of appointment. The Court did not find any merit in the submission. The same was dismissed.
Click here to read the full judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.