Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a new petition challenging the rule requiring advocates to handle 50 cases per year to qualify as a district judge. The Court upheld the earlier verdict, calling the cutoff a valid merit-based criterion.
Chandigarh: Today, on July 25, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a fresh petition filed by Advocate Kanu Sharma challenging the eligibility criteria for appointment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service.
The eligibility rule, under Rule 11(bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, requires an advocate to have handled at least 50 cases in each of the last three years and have a gross professional income of not less than Rs 5 lakh per annum, along with being an income tax assessee for the same period.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry.
The Court observed that the same rule had already been upheld earlier by a coordinate bench in the case of Rajender Prasad and Others v. State of Haryana, and that judgment had attained finality, as no one challenged it before the Supreme Court.
The High Court Bench made it clear that there was no new ground provided in the current petition to reconsider or overturn the previous decision.
The Court stated:
“The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has not given us any ground to take a different view than the view taken by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rajender Prasad and others vs State of Haryana…In view of the above, it would be appropriate to give a quietus to the matter…Accordingly, there is no substance in the present petition.”
Advocate Kanu Sharma, who is a legal aid counsel at the High Court and practices across multiple forums, had filed the petition arguing that she had handled only 36 cases per year, which fell short of the required 50 cases per year.
Her counsel contended that this strict numerical cutoff unfairly disqualified competent and experienced lawyers like her from applying for the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADJ) posts.
The Court was also informed that similar rules existed in Punjab and that the High Court had earlier dismissed a challenge to this rule last year, a decision that has also not been appealed before the Supreme Court.
Representing the High Court, Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji emphasized that the eligibility rule had been previously upheld and there was no reason to revisit it.
The petitioner’s counsel, however, insisted that the rule should be reconsidered and asked the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench.
ALSO READ: Judicial Appointments Tracker: February 2025 – Appointments & Pending Clearances
He asked rhetorically:
“A candidate who has conducted 49 cases, will she become ineligible for the ADJ exam. She (petitioner) is a legal aid counsel at the High Court and she has experience, takes litigation at multiple forums but she has less than 50 cases … 36 cases.”
The Bench rejected the argument and emphasized the importance of having a fixed and measurable criterion, even if it results in some deserving candidates being excluded by a narrow margin.
The Court remarked:
“Every time it is placed, then you will question it that why 10, why 20, why 30, why 40?”…somewhere a boundary has to be there. There is always cutoff for age…how do we take a different view? [from earlier bench]”
The petitioner also raised the constitutional argument that Article 233 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of District Judges, only mandates seven years of practice as an advocate without any such additional case count or income criteria.
But the Court dismissed this line of argument too, clarifying that High Courts are within their rights to impose further conditions to ensure merit and quality in judicial appointments.
The Bench clearly stated:
“That [additional criteria] can always be laid down by the High Court for ensuring merit.”
In a more candid moment during the hearing, Chief Justice Nagu addressed the issue of narrowly missing the 50-case requirement.
When the petitioner’s counsel mentioned that someone with 49 cases would be unfairly excluded, the Chief Justice remarked:
“If we place at 30, someone will say I have 29.. that is sheer bad luck. In competitive exams, it happens. There has to be some bar.” He also added: “Such a hypothetical would be bad luck.”
In conclusion, the Court reiterated that while the petitioner’s experience and contributions as a legal aid counsel are commendable, the specific eligibility criteria in place cannot be overridden without compelling reasons.
As the Bench found no merit in the arguments raised, it proceeded to dismiss the petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 11(bb) and affirming the importance of fixed benchmarks for judicial recruitment.
Case Title:
Kanu Sharma v High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Judicial Appointments
