Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Continuous 7 Years’ Practice Not Necessary for District Judge Eligibility
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled on Thursday that an advocate does not need continuous seven years of practice to be eligible for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge [Sandeep Sharma v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others].
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya clarified that Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004, only requires an advocate to have a minimum of seven years of experience on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications.
“There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making an application for the said post,” the Court stated.
The Court further emphasized that Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which provides for the appointment of advocates as district judges, “does not support the view” that the candidate’s seven-year experience must be continuous.
The Bench disagreed with a Delhi High Court decision that held the experience must be continuous and also distinguished the decisions of other High Courts on this matter.
This ruling came while hearing a petition challenging the selection of another candidate, Advocate Parveen Garg, who had tied with the petitioner, Sandeep Sharma, in the written examination.
Sharma argued that Garg could not have been appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge last year because he did not have a continuous seven years of practice as an advocate, citing Garg’s employment as District Legal Officer and Civil Judge-II in Madhya Pradesh as a break in practice.
Additionally, it was noted that Garg had previously applied for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination but was disqualified for not having continuous practice of seven years. This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner also contended that the “Note” below Clause (c) in Rule 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, which allows the period during which an advocate held judicial office to be counted towards their experience, contradicts a Supreme Court decision.
However, the Court found no requirement for continuous seven years of practice for eligibility. It noted that Garg was in active practice from 2012 to 2015 and then from 2018 to 2022, cumulatively exceeding seven years of active practice, making him eligible under Rule 5 (c).
The Court agreed that the Supreme Court ruled that experience obtained in judicial service cannot be counted towards the requisite experience of advocacy. Consequently, it quashed the Note under Clause (c) of Rule 5 but upheld Garg’s appointment as Additional District Judge.
Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan and Advocate Sohail Khan represented the petitioner. Senior Advocate JL Bhardwaj, along with Advocate Komal Chaudhary, represented the High Court. Deputy Advocate General Arsh Rattan represented the State, and Advocates Prateek Gupta, Praveen Chandel, and Ashwani Sharma represented the respondent.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
