Bar Council Registration Must for Civil Judge Recruitment

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed all petitions challenging the eligibility conditions for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Recruitment 2023-24. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Kumar Sinha and Justice BD Guru stated that the recruitment process will be conducted as per the rules in effect on the date of the advertisement.

The advertisement issued on December 23, 2024, clearly stated that a candidate must possess a law degree from a recognized university, as well as enrolment as an advocate with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Petitioners argued:
Several candidates, including Priyanka Thakur and Sudhanshu Sainik, had filed petitions. They argued that this requirement set by the State Public Service Commission violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that public prosecutors perform the same functions as lawyers in court, but due to their government employment, they are unable to enrol with the Bar Council. Similarly, law graduates working in other government services are also denied registration. In the Supreme Court's Deepak Agarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik case and other decisions, prosecution officers have been considered equivalent to lawyers. The revised advertisement of February 21, 2025, provides age relaxation for government employees, but does not provide any relaxation in the registration requirement, creating a contradiction.

The High Court Declared This
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the All India Judges Association vs. Union of India case, the High Court stated that the recruitment process will be conducted according to the rules applicable at the date of the advertisement. Therefore, the registration requirement applicable on December 23, 2024, will be valid, not the February 21, 2025 amendment. The Court also stated that it is not appropriate to directly appoint fresh law graduates as judges. At least three years of practice is required so that candidates understand the workings of the court and the quality of judicial service is not affected.

The State Government Presented Its Position
The Advocate General, representing the state government, argued that the petitioners had failed to prove that the rules constituted any constitutional violation. This condition has been imposed to maintain the quality and functioning of judicial service.