Twenty-one serving Karnataka court officers have failed to get the Practice Rule For Court Staff relaxed, the Supreme Court dismissing their applications and observing, in oral remarks, that judicial posts are not a promotional avenue for other cadres.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 4, dismissed the applications of twenty-one serving court officers from Karnataka who had sought an exemption from the mandatory practice requirement for the Civil Judge examination, declining to modify its Bhumika Trust judgment [Yogesh B & Others (Miscellaneous Application) in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India].
The applications were heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, with Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the applicants. The observations set out below were made orally during the hearing; the operative outcome was the dismissal of the applications.
What the court officers asked for
According to the application, the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 were amended in 2011 to admit some in-service candidates and in 2015 to cover all of them, until a March 12, 2026 amendment excluded them, citing the Supreme Court’s May 20, 2025 All India Judges Association ruling that made practice mandatory. The applicants, with five to fifteen years in service, argued that law clerks had been made eligible under a transitional arrangement in an August 21, 2026 judgment, that they could not resign to practise given family obligations, and that their exclusion violated Articles 14 and 16. They said they sought no reservation and would sit the same written examination and viva voce.
“Not a promotional post”
Sondhi argued that States were applying the Court’s earlier rulings inconsistently: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Maharashtra continued to allow in-service candidates through recruitment by transfer, while Karnataka required them to compete in the open category. The Chief Justice said a separate channel was for the States to create under Article 309 or by legislation:
“That is for the State. They can exercise their power under Article 309, or perhaps through legislation. But we would like to keep ourselves away from issuing a direction that they should introduce another channel of recruitment.”
When Sondhi pressed for uniformity, the CJI said any challenge to other States’ rules would be examined if raised, but the standards would not be relaxed. “You cannot make judicial service a promotional post for other cadres,” he remarked.
Experience acknowledged, but exceptions do not make a rule
Sondhi pointed to the experience of court officers and judgment writers and recalled that former CJI S.H. Kapadia began as a clerk. The Chief Justice responded that such exceptions could not found a uniform rule:
“We have no doubt about them. We know that without their assistance, the administration of justice will become lame… That is not a very wise foundation for framing a uniform rule. Exceptions are always there.”
Those who wished to join, he added, would need the confidence to leave the security of service, practise for a year and take a chance in the open field. Justice V Mohana said that while bench and court clerks do work lawyers cannot, they cannot be treated as a channel for promotion into judicial service.
The plea for a one-time relaxation
The applicants cited pending recruitments and paragraph 50 of the Bhumika Trust judgment on transitional hardship in seeking a one-time relaxation. The CJI said: “As of now, we would not like to relax this condition. No reason to modify our judgment. Dismissed.” Asked to clarify that States retain their policy liberty, Justice Bagchi said the Court was averse to passing a general order injuncting the States.
Why the hearing matters
The dismissal closes the door, for now, on a court-ordered carve-out for ministerial staff of the judiciary who hold law degrees. Whether in-service candidates get a separate route is left to State rule-making, and the Bench signalled it would examine rules in States that still allow such a route if they are challenged. For thousands of court employees across the country, the practice requirement remains the gateway.
Case Title: Yogesh B & Others (Miscellaneous Application) in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India
Case Number: Diary No. 58252/2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 4, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for the applicants; application filed through AoR Agam Sharma