MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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