A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court against the quashing of the amendment to the MP Higher Judicial Service Rules, stating, “The amendment is not a new recruitment method, but only a conditional adjustment within the framework.”
A plea has been submitted to the Supreme Court contesting a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that cancelled an amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, concerning appointments to the position of district judge.
The 2015 amendment permitted the high court to appoint district judges (entry-level) from among district court judges if suitable candidates from the Bar quota (advocate quota) were not identified in two consecutive exams.
The petition, filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through its registrar general, seeks a stay on the High Court’s order dated April 4, 2025.
According to the petition, represented by advocate Ashwani Dubey, the amendment was introduced to address the significant issue of a low number of selections of district judges from the quota allocated for practicing lawyers with over seven years of experience.
The petition noted that between 2011 and 2015, 304 vacancies were announced through multiple recruitment drives in Madhya Pradesh, yet only 11 advocates were deemed suitable, resulting in just 11 district judge (entry-level) positions being filled through direct recruitment of qualified lawyers.
The petition stated,
“The same tantamount to filling up of 3.61 per cent of the available posts earmarked to be filled by way of recruiting suitable lawyers.”
As a result, many vacancies for the district judge (entry-level) position remained unfilled despite being properly advertised, leading to a significant increase in the workload for the current officers of the higher judiciary in Madhya Pradesh. This surge in workload adversely impacted the disposal rate and ultimately became a major obstacle to the efficient administration of justice in the state.
The petition further explained that in light of this situation, the then-Chief Justice proposed various strategies to resolve the issue of insufficient recruitment for district judges, particularly through direct recruitment.
The Proviso to Rule 5(1)(c) was introduced as a necessary institutional response to the persistent failure of the direct recruitment process for district judges through the quota reserved for lawyers, which had been ineffective since 2006.
The petition argued that the High Court did not adequately consider the contextual and constitutional rationale behind the amendment. The High Court’s order was based on petitions filed by some candidates challenging this amendment.
The plea asserted that the amendment does not establish a new recruitment method but rather functions as a conditional adjustment within the existing framework.
The petition stated,
“Its purpose is to ensure continuity in judicial operations by filling longstanding vacancies and addressing systemic inefficiencies, thereby aligning with the broader constitutional goal of ensuring timely justice delivery,”