Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Judicial Service Trainees Not Eligible as Practising Advocates for Direct Recruitment As District Judge: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified the eligibility criteria for the appointment of District and Sessions Judges from the Bar, emphasizing the distinction between judicial service trainees and practising advocates. The bench, comprising Honorable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Honorable Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, delivered a judgment dismissing the appeal of a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee who sought to be considered as a practising advocate for the direct recruitment process.

The case revolved around an appellant, previously a practising lawyer and later appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate trainee, who challenged her exclusion from the viva-voce for the appointment as District and Sessions Judge. The court’s decision was based on a critical interpretation of the term “practising advocate” as mentioned in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.

The court observed, “The right to participate in a selection is guaranteed only if the candidate fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria on the stipulated date.” This statement underlines the court’s position that continuous legal practice is essential for eligibility in direct recruitment from the Bar.

Further, the court referenced several past judgments, including the notable decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, to reinforce their conclusion. The bench clarified that undergoing pre-induction training as a Munsiff-Magistrate disqualifies an individual from being considered as a practising advocate for direct recruitment to the judicial post.

This ruling has significant implications for legal professionals aspiring to transition from advocacy to the judiciary, setting a clear precedent for future cases. The court, recognizing the broader impact of this decision, granted a certificate for an appeal to the Supreme Court, indicating the importance and potential nationwide influence of this judgment.

Date of Decision: 7th November 2023

SMT.LILLY KRISHNAN VS STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Kerl-07-Nov-23-Lilly-Krishna-Vs-State-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News