Shreya Gupta
On August 12, 2025, a three-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria referred two tightly framed questions about Article 233(2) to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The Court will now decide:
- whether a judicial officer who had already completed seven years’ practice at the Bar before joining service can be appointed as a District Judge against the Bar (direct-recruit) quota, and
- whether eligibility must be tested at the time of appointment, at the time of application, or both. The reference order cites Article 145(3)
In Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), a three-judge Bench held that for Article 233(2) the candidate must be “not already in service” and must have at least seven years’ standing as an advocate, continuing up to the date of appointment; members of the judicial service, even those who earlier had seven years at the Bar cannot stake a claim to posts reserved for “from the Bar” direct recruitment.
The present Bench notes that although an earlier order had flagged Article 233(2) as a substantial constitutional question, Dheeraj Mor was ultimately decided by three judges; hence, consistent with Article 145(3) and subsequent jurisprudence, a Constitution Bench should now settle the interpretive issues.
The immediate case context is an appeal from Kerala. The appellant, Rejanish K.V., was a practising advocate with over seven years’ experience when he applied for direct recruitment as a District Judge. While that selection was still underway, he was selected and joined as a Munsiff-Magistrate.
Later, he received an appointment order as District Judge, was relieved from the subordinate judiciary on 21-08-2019, and took charge as District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on 24-08-2019. Another candidate, K. Deepa, challenged his appointment on the ground that on the date of appointment, he was in judicial service and not a practising advocate.
A Single Judge set aside his appointment relying on Dheeraj Mor; a Division Bench affirmed but certified the matter for appeal, given its wider importance across States. The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s judgment in 2021.
In explaining the reference, the Court clarifies that earlier Constitution Bench rulings like Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan addressed different facets (e.g., counting pre-partition practice; the meaning of “service” under Article 233) and do not squarely answer today’s dispute about prior Bar experience followed by entry into judicial service and the “when” of eligibility. That, coupled with the systemic impact on recruitment rules and appointments nationwide, justifies Constitution Bench consideration.
If eligibility is judged at the application stage, advocates who join judicial service while the process is pending might still be appointed under the Bar quota; if at the appointment stage (as read in Dheeraj Mor), any candidate in service on that date would be ineligible. The first question could also determine whether officers who had seven years’ Bar practice before joining service can ever be considered under the Bar quota.
The answer will affect State recruitment rules and numerous past or pending selections conducted on varying interpretations.
Case Title: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA
Bench: CJI B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com