7 Years Continuous Practice As Advocate Mandatory “Immediately” Before The Recruitment As District Judge: Orissa HC
The Division Bench of Orissa on Monday provided a clarification that an individual must have practiced as an Advocate continuously for seven years ‘immediately’ before submitting application for direct recruitment in the cadre of District Judge from the Bar. The Bench was comprised of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy.
The bench made it clear that an experience of seven years at any point of time in the past career life would not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the recruitment process, reported the Live Law. This means the candidate must be an immediate practicer for at least seven years before sitting for the recruitment.
The petitioner named Trupti Mayee Patra was enrolled with the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack, and practiced as an advocate from 2004 to 2014. She got selected as a Junior Clerk in 2016 and then subsequently surrendered her license. In March 2018, she was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor.
She then applied for the recruitment of District Judge in 2020, 2021, and 2022, but remained unsuccessful. She again submitted an application in 2023 enclosing necessary documents but traced ineligible. Her name was found missing in the list of eligible candidates. This prompted the petitioner to file the current petition “invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
“The counsel, thus, prayed for a direction to issue a fresh list of eligible candidates including the name of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the High Court in Basanta Kumar Mohanty v. Utkal University & Ors. and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. N. Murugesan etc”, reported the Live Law
But the High Court observed that the petitioner, from her record, is not having seven years of continuous practice just preceding the date of her application. The court referred to Article 233(2) of the Constitution which provides that “a person not already in the service of Union or the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years as advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment”.
The phrase “has been” was taken again into consideration and the bench ruled, “the present perfect continuous tense is used for a position which began at sometime in the past and is still continuing. Therefore, one of the essential requirements articulated by the above expression in Article 233(2) is that such person must with requisite period be continuing as an advocate on the date of application”.
