Priyanshu
In a landmark decision on July 11, 2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court declared that continuous practice as an advocate for seven years is not a prerequisite for eligibility to be appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The ruling came in the case of Sandeep Sharma v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others, where the petitioner challenged the appointment of Praveen Garg as an Additional District Judge due to a perceived lack of continuous practice.
The Case
The petitioner, Sandeep Sharma, argued that Garg’s prior employment as a District Legal Officer and Civil Judge-II in Madhya Pradesh constituted a break in his practice as an Advocate, thereby disqualifying him from the appointment. Sharma contended that Garg’s cumulative practice period fell short of the seven years required by Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya meticulously examined the case, referring to Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, which outlines the eligibility criteria for District Judges. The court concluded that the constitutional provision does not mandate continuous practice, stating, “There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post.”
The court also delved into previous decisions, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, to clarify the interpretation of the seven-year practice requirement. It disagreed with the Delhi High Court’s interpretation that continuous practice was mandatory, emphasizing that the essence of the requirement is a minimum of seven years of experience, not an uninterrupted practice.
Key Legal Points
- Article 233(2) of the Constitution: This article governs the appointment of district judges and requires a minimum of seven years of experience as an advocate or pleader.
- Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004: This rule specifies the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment of advocates as district judges.
- Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi: This Supreme Court decision clarified the interpretation of the seven-year practice requirement, stating that it does not necessitate continuous practice.
Implications
This ruling broadens the pool of eligible candidates by removing the stringent requirement of continuous practice, thereby opening doors for advocates who may have had breaks in their practice due to various reasons.The decision also underscores the importance of interpreting legal provisions in their true spirit and intent, rather than adhering to rigid interpretations that may not align with the broader objectives of the law.
Name of the case: Sandeep Sharma v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others
CWP no. 5326 of 2023
Bench:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya