‘No difference if law graduate candidate not enrolled’; Chhattisgarh HC allows candidates without Bar Enrollment to appear in Civil Judge Exam

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition filed by a judiciary aspirant against the amendment made in the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (‘the Rules’) that disallowed her from appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024 (‘the Civil Judge Exam’) as she was not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ, and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., allowed the petitioner and other candidates who were not enrolled under the Act to appear in the Civil Judge Exam while holding that a candidate who was a law graduate, whether or not enrolled as an Advocate, would hardly make any difference as they would have to go through the same scrutiny as other candidates who were enrolled. The Court also directed that the deadline for filling out the online form be extended by a month.

Background

The petitioner was a law graduate with a law degree from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. It was contended that she wanted to appear for the Civil Judge Exam advertised by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (‘the Commission’). She was working as a government servant and not enrolled as an Advocate under the Act as she was statutorily barred from enrolling as per Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules framed under the Act.

The petitioner was aggrieved by an amendment in Rule 7(1)(c) of the Rules, whereby a candidate now required a degree in Law from any recognized University and enrolment as an Advocate under the Act. The petitioner was also aggrieved by an advertisement issued by the Commission, in which one of the essential qualifications was that the candidates should be registered as Advocates to appear in the Civil Judge Exam.

It was contended that the petitioner, under the old rules, was eligible to participate in the recruitment process but became ineligible due to the impugned amendment. It was further contended that several other States like Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Delhi did not have any such condition.

Analysis

Noting that the petitioner’s contention had some substance, the Court stated that in a selection process, the scope of the candidates for participation should not be narrowed down by imposing unwarranted conditions, but rather more candidates should be allowed to participate so that better-qualified candidates would be selected. A candidate who was a law graduate, whether enrolled as an Advocate, would hardly make any difference as they would have to go through the same scrutiny as other candidates who were enrolled.

Hence, prima facie, the Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to fill out her online form, and if she fulfilled all the other criteria, she might be permitted to participate in the recruitment process.

Since the last date for submission of online forms was 24-01-2025, the Court directed the Commission to extend the last date of submission of online forms, preferably by one month from the date of this order. Further, purely as an interim measure, the Court directed the Commission to permit the candidates to fill out their online forms even if they were not enrolled as Advocates under the Act. The said changes were to be notified to the aspirants by way of a corrigendum to be published in widely circulated newspapers and other forms of media.

However, the Court stated that the participation of the candidates in the recruitment process would be subject to the final outcome of this petition. The Court added that this order would operate in rem and not in personam, thus, even those candidates who did not approach the Court seeking the aforesaid relief should be permitted to avail the benefit of the present order.

[Vinita Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 1320, decided on 22-01-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Sharmila Singhai and Ishita Niyogi

For the respondent: Additional Advocate General Y.S. Thakur, Animesh Tiwari, and Anurag Dayal Shrivastava