The Court explicitly stated, “There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post.”
Himachal Pradesh: The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently ruled that advocates seeking appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge are not required to have continuous seven years of practice immediately before applying.
READ ALSO: Himachal Pradesh High Court Affirms Motherhood as a Fundamental Right
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya emphasized that Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 stipulates that an advocate needs to possess at least seven years of experience by the application deadline.
The Court explicitly stated, “There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post.”
The Court clarified that Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 mandates only a minimum of seven years of experience by the application deadline, not necessarily continuous. This decision contrasts with a Delhi High Court ruling that upheld the need for continuous practice.
The petitioner, Sandeep Sharma, argued that Advocate Parveen Garg should not have been appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge because he did not have continuous practice as an advocate for seven years prior to his application. Sharma pointed out that Garg had a break in his advocacy practice due to his employment as District Legal Officer and Civil Judge-II in Madhya Pradesh.
READ ALSO: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Doctor’s Right in NEET Counselling Case
Additionally, it was noted that Garg had previously faced disqualification in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination for lacking continuous seven years of practice, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court despite Garg’s challenge.
Sharma also contested the “Note” under Clause (c) of Rule 5 in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, which allows periods spent in judicial office to count towards advocacy experience, arguing it conflicted with a Supreme Court decision.
Upon concluding that continuous practice of seven years was not a prerequisite for eligibility, the Court acknowledged that Garg had been actively practicing as an advocate from 2012 to 2015 and again from 2018 to 2022.
However, it also set aside a provision allowing judicial service to count towards advocacy experience, citing Supreme Court precedent. Despite this, the Court upheld Garg’s appointment as Additional District Judge.
The Court ruled,
“He thus possesses cumulatively more than 7 years of active practice. Thus he is eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Additional District Judge as per Rule 5 (c).”
READ ALSO: Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Non-Reporting Under POCSO Act as Bailable Offence
Regarding the Supreme Court’s position, the Court stated,
“To the extent the Note under clause (c) of Rule 5 counted the period spent on judicial service by a candidate towards the 7 year periods of service as Advocate is clearly contrary to the para 45 of Dheeraj Mor…where the Supreme Court held that ‘….For constituting experience of 7 years of practice as Advocate, experience obtained in judicial service cannot be equated/combined.”
Case Title: Sandeep Sharma v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
