Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court in Sunil Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 8306 of 2020, decided on 8 April 2021, addressed a vital question concerning the eligibility of judicial officers for direct recruitment to the District Judge (Entry Level) under the “Direct from Bar” quota. The Court examined the constitutional meaning of “has been an advocate for not less than seven years” under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401].
Background of the Case
The petitioner was a judicial officer who had initially practiced as an advocate after enrolling with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 5 December 2007. He practiced until 15 January 2017, before joining the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 16 January 2017.
Meanwhile, the Patna High Court had advertised on 22 August 2016 for the District Judge (Entry Level) – Direct from Bar Examination, 2016, to fill 98 vacancies. One key eligibility criterion required that the candidate must have not less than seven years’ practice as an advocate on the last date for submission of the application — i.e., 16 September 2016.
The petitioner applied for the post before joining the judicial service and was successful in the preliminary and main written examinations. He also cleared the interview and was appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai in August 2018 after resigning from his Uttar Pradesh post.
However, after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dheeraj Mor (delivered in February 2020), the Patna High Court issued a show-cause notice asking why the petitioner’s appointment should not be terminated since he was not a practicing advocate on the date of the main examination, interview, or appointment. Eventually, his services were terminated through Memo No. 12094 dated 17 December 2020.
Aggrieved, he challenged the termination before the Patna High Court.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, conducted an extensive constitutional interpretation of Article 233(2), which governs eligibility for appointment as District Judge.
1. Constitutional Framework
Article 233(2) states that a person “not already in the service of the Union or the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or pleader.”
The Court observed that this clause clearly distinguishes two streams of recruitment:
- Promotion or appointment from within the judicial service, and
- Direct recruitment from among advocates practicing for at least seven years.
The provision aims to preserve independence of the judiciary and maintain balance between the service cadre and the Bar.
2. Interpretation of “Has Been an Advocate”
The Bench referred to Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 816) and Chandra Mohan v. High Court of Allahabad (AIR 1966 SC 1987) to examine whether “has been” requires continuous practice up to the date of appointment. The Court emphasized that the constitutional language is in present perfect tense, meaning the person must be an advocate both on the date of application and at the time of appointment.
This interpretation was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor, which held that an advocate who has joined any judicial or government service ceases to be a practicing advocate and is therefore ineligible for appointment in the “Direct from Bar” quota.
3. Effect of the Dheeraj Mor Judgment
The Patna High Court noted that the petitioner’s selection was made before the Dheeraj Mor decision but his appointment and continuation as a District Judge were governed by the constitutional interpretation declared by the Supreme Court.
Once Dheeraj Mor clarified that a judicial officer cannot be appointed under the direct Bar quota, the petitioner automatically became ineligible, since he had joined the U.P. Judicial Service prior to the examination and appointment stages.
4. On the Argument of Retrospective Application
The petitioner argued that since he was an advocate on the cut-off date (16 September 2016), subsequent events should not affect his eligibility. However, the Court held that eligibility must exist not only at the time of application but also at the time of appointment. The constitutional language and the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation left no room for alternate construction.
5. Separation of Streams
The judgment also reaffirmed that two distinct channels exist for recruitment:
- Judicial officers move up through promotion,
- Advocates enter through direct recruitment.
Once a person joins the judicial service, they cannot cross over to the “Bar” stream for lateral entry to the District Judge post. The Court likened the two to “parallel streams that cannot merge or overlap.”
Court’s Conclusion
The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the High Court administration’s action. It held that:
- The petitioner ceased to be an advocate once he joined the U.P. Judicial Service on 16 January 2017.
- Consequently, he was not a practicing advocate on the date of the preliminary examination, the main examination, interview, or appointment.
- Under Article 233(2) and the ratio of Dheeraj Mor, he was ineligible for appointment to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge in Bihar under the Bar quota.
The Court concluded that no illegality was committed by the Patna High Court administration in terminating his service.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment has broad implications for judicial recruitment across India:
- Clarification of Eligibility Norms:
Only those who are continuously practicing advocates up to the date of appointment are eligible for direct recruitment to the District Judge cadre. - No Crossover Between Judicial Service and Bar Quota:
Judicial officers cannot claim eligibility under the Bar quota after joining service. Their progression must occur through the promotional channel only. - Uniformity in Judicial Appointments:
The decision brings Bihar’s recruitment process in line with the constitutional interpretation given by the Supreme Court, ensuring consistency across states. - Administrative Caution for High Courts:
High Courts must verify that candidates remain advocates not just at the cut-off date but also till the time of final appointment. - Future Guidance for Aspirants:
Lawyers appearing for “Direct from Bar” examinations must refrain from joining judicial or government service before appointment, or they risk ineligibility.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision (with Reasoning)
- Whether a person who joins judicial service after applying but before appointment can still be considered under the Bar quota?
❌ No. Once a person joins service, they cease to be an advocate under Article 233(2). - Does eligibility under Article 233(2) depend only on the cut-off date or must it continue till appointment?
✅ It must continue till appointment. The phrase “has been an advocate” implies continuity. - Can High Courts terminate an appointment already made before the Supreme Court’s clarification?
✅ Yes. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 233(2) is declaratory and applies to all existing cases. - Do judicial officers have a separate route to become District Judges?
✅ Yes. They can only be promoted through the service channel, not through the Bar quota.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401
- Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 816
- Chandra Mohan v. High Court of Allahabad, AIR 1966 SC 1987
- Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1
- R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324
Case Title
Sunil Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8306 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 626
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anand Kumar, AC to AAG-3
- For the High Court: Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
Link to Judgment
MTUjODMwNiMyMDIwIzEjTg==-6kRU9SvI1MM=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
