Gujarat High Court: After the case where two law graduates from an allegedly unrecognized institution were allowed to participate in the Civil Judge recruitment process, the High Court filed the present appeal against such order of the Single Judge claiming that the respondents- original petitioners/ graduates did not satisfy the requirement of being practicing advocates. The Division Bench of A.S. Supehia* and Gita Gopi, JJ., stayed the impugned order, holding that the Single Judge did not delve into the provisions of Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005(‘the Rules’) and the advertisement inviting applications for the Civil Judge recruitment Examination (‘the advertisement’). The Court stated that since the graduates were not practicing advocates and there were doubts regarding the legality of their LL.B. graduation, thus, they could not be allowed to participate in the recruitment process.
Background
In the impugned order, the Single Judge directed the High Court to allow the graduates to conditionally participate in the Civil Judge recruitment process. Accordingly, on 26-02-2025, the graduates were issued Enrolment Intimation Letters and provisional permission certificates, conditionally allowing them to practice as advocates. However, aggrieved by such a grant of permission, the present appeal was filed.
The High Court contended that as per Clause (2) of the advertisement, the graduates were supposed to be practicing as Advocates in Civil and/or Criminal Courts as on the last date fixed for submission of online application. This clause was introduced in view of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules, which mandated that to get recruited as a Civil Judge by way of direct recruitment, the candidate must be practicing as an advocate in Courts of Civil and/or Criminal jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of applications; or must have worked in Courts or other allied departments for at least five years.
It was contended that the graduates could not be said to be practicing advocates. Further, as per All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010, the Certificate of Practice could only be issued by the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’), but since, the Single Judge directed the Bar Council of Gujarat to issue such certificate, they had been issued in compliance. Additionally, BCI was not arraigned as a party to any writ petitions filed by the aggrieved law graduates.
Analysis
The Court stated that it was undisputed that the colleges from which the graduates had completed their LLB course were scrutinized and not granted approval of affiliation by the BCI. The said action was the subject matter of challenge by the candidates before this Court in various writ petitions.
The Court stated that as per Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules, the graduates, on the date of receipt of the applications, were not actually practicing as advocates. The Court also noted that the graduates could not show which Court they were practicing in, what their type of practice was, or how long they had been practicing. Additionally, the authorities mentioned in Clause 6 of the advertisement, who were empowered to issue such a certificate of practice, had not issued the same. In fact, the BCI was not arraigned as a party to the writ petition. Thus, the graduates did not possess the certificates per Rule 7(2)(b).
After perusing the averments of the writ petition, the Court remarked that it was bereft of any provision of law under which the graduates claimed to appear in the recruitment process. The graduates were unable to point out under which provisions of law they could be allowed to appear in the recruitment process, since neither were they eligible as per the requirement of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules nor were they able to satisfy that they were holding the Provisional Certificate issued by the authorities.
The Court stated that the Single Judge while granting the interim relief, did not discuss the Rules and their effect. The Single Judge premised the interim order only on the direction issued by another Single Judge in other similar writ petitions. The Court stated that in a situation where the legality of the LL.B. course of the graduates was yet to be examined, they could not be allowed to participate in the recruitment process of Civil Judges. Since the substratum of having done a valid and legal LL.B. course was unstable, they could not claim themselves to be legally practicing as per the requirement of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules. The Court said, “The sanctity of requirement of statutory Rule cannot be sullied by the process which is yet to be declared lawful. The obligation of statutory Rule has to be absolutely satisfied and is not reliant on future happenings.”
Thus, the Court held that the impugned order did not delve into the Rules and provisions of the advertisement and satisfy the requirements therein, despite being required to do so.
Accordingly, the impugned order was stayed, and the Court clarified that the observations made herein were limited to the permission granted to the graduates to appear in the recruitment process.
[High Court of Gujarat v. Neha Vivek Dwivedi, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 775, decided on 27-02-2025]
*Order Authored by Justice A.S. Supehia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Senior Advocate G.M. Joshi and Chintan N Desai
For the respondent: Sudhnashu Jha, Mithil Mehta, Saurabh Mehta, and AGP Nirali Sarda
