-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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"]
