Safiya Malik

The Chhattisgarh High Court has issued an interim order allowing law graduates to apply for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination without being enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CPSC) to revise its recruitment notification and extend the application deadline by one month to ensure broader participation. This interim relief applies to all law graduates, irrespective of their enrollment status as advocates, pending the final outcome of the case.

The petitioner, a law graduate employed as a government servant, filed the petition challenging the amended Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The amendment, introduced through a Gazette Notification dated July 5, 2024, made advocate enrollment a mandatory qualification for appearing in the Civil Judge Examination. The petitioner argued that the new requirement unjustly excluded her from the recruitment process, which she was previously eligible to participate in under the unamended rules.

The petitioner submitted that Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules prohibits full-time salaried employees from enrolling as advocates. As a result, the amended eligibility criteria created an unreasonable barrier, preventing her and similarly situated candidates from applying for judicial service examinations. She further contended that the requirement for advocate enrollment was inconsistent with recruitment practices in other states, such as Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan, where such a condition is not imposed or is optional.

The petitioner relied on constitutional provisions and judicial precedents to challenge the validity of the amended rules. Referring to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, she asserted that the amendment violated principles of equality and fairness in public employment. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 487), stating that rules governing public recruitment must not create arbitrary or unreasonable distinctions among eligible candidates. She requested interim relief, seeking permission to apply for the examination without advocate enrollment.

The respondents, including the State of Chhattisgarh, the CPSC, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh, opposed the plea. They contended that the amended rules were introduced to ensure that candidates entering the judiciary possess practical legal experience. The respondents submitted that requiring advocate enrollment aligns with the objective of recruiting candidates with practical knowledge of the legal profession. They sought additional time to file a detailed response to the petitioner’s claims.

The court reviewed the petitioner’s arguments and the objections raised by the respondents. It noted that the petitioner’s primary grievance concerned the narrowing of eligibility criteria due to the amendment. The judgment stated: “The issue raised by the petitioner pertains to whether advocate enrollment is an indispensable criterion for appearing in judicial service examinations, and if not, whether such a condition unjustly narrows the pool of eligible candidates.”

The court observed that the petitioner and similarly situated candidates face disqualification solely because they are barred by Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules from enrolling as advocates. The court stated: “In a selection process, the scope of candidates for participation should not be narrowed down by imposing unwarranted conditions. A candidate who is a law graduate, whether or not enrolled as an advocate, would hardly make any difference as he/she will also have to go through the same scrutiny as other candidates.”

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on recruitment practices in other states, the court noted the absence of uniformity in judicial service examination criteria. It observed that while advocate enrollment is a requirement in some states, it is not mandatory in others. The court further recorded: “The petitioner’s reliance on recruitment processes in other states demonstrates that the criterion of advocate enrollment is not universally recognized as essential for judicial service examinations.”

In granting interim relief, the court permitted law graduates who are not enrolled as advocates to apply for the Civil Judge Examination. The court directed the CPSC to extend the application deadline by one month from the date of the order and to notify candidates of the amendment through a corrigendum published in newspapers and other media platforms. The court clarified that participation in the recruitment process would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

The judgment stated: “The participation of such candidates in the recruitment process shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition.” It further added that the interim relief would operate in rem rather than in personam, thereby extending the benefit to all similarly placed candidates, irrespective of whether they had approached the court for relief.

The court also directed the High Court of Chhattisgarh to revisit the amended rules, considering the concerns raised in the petition and relevant judgments of the Supreme Court. It observed: “The respondents are requested to examine the amended rules in light of constitutional principles and ensure compliance with established judicial precedents.”

The court scheduled the next hearing for February 17, 2025, allowing the respondents to file their responses before the case proceeds further.

Case Title: Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Case Number: WPS No. 608 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

[Read/Download order]