- (1.) These writ petitions have been filed, inter alia, for issuance of appropriate writ - 1. To declare Rule 5(b) of the Jharkhand Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 to the extent which prescribes a Graduate in law and enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act under the Advocates Act, 1961 as the eligibility criteria for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) ultra vires. 2. To quash the advertisement No.4 of 2013 issued by the respondent No.3 for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 3. To reconsider the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupesh Kumar & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.(S) 1928 of 2008.
(2.) Rule 5 of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 2004, which stipulates eligibility criteria for appointment of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), inter alia, provides that the candidate should be a Graduate in law from a recognized University and enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. An advertisement No.4/2013 was published on 6.1.2014 by the 3rd respondent for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and clause 2(A)(a) thereof stipulates that a Law Graduate from a recognized University and enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to participate in the examination. The petitioners, who are working as Assistants in the Jharkhand High Court and who have obtained law degree after entering service as Assistants have challenged the vires of Rule 5(b).
(3.) In the case of All India Judges Association And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors., 1993 4 SCC 288], Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed the view that Judicial service is not service in the sense of employment and that they exercise sovereign judicial power of State deciding questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants and the Judicial Officers must be familiar with the working of the courts system and the administration of justice and in para (20) held as follows:- " Considering the fact that from the first day of his assuming office, the Judge has to decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers is neither prudent nor desirable. Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court-system and the administration of justice begotten through legal practice. The practice involves much more than mere advocacy. A lawyer has to interact with several components of the administration of justice. Unless the judicial officer is familiar with the working of the said components, his education and equipment as a Judge is likely to remain incomplete. The experience as a lawyer is, therefore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with confidence and circumspection. Many States have hence prescribed a minimum of three years' practice as a lawyer as an essential qualification for appointment as a judicial officer at the lowest rung. It is, hence, necessary that all the States prescribe the said minimum practice as a lawyer as a necessary qualification for recruitment to the lowest rung in the judiciary. In this connection, it may be pointed out that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, no person is eligible to be appointed a District Judge unless he has been an advocate or a pleader for not less than seven years while Articles 217(2)(b) and 124(3)(b) require at least ten years' practice as an advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a person to the posts of the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court, respectively. We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung.";