Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench consisting of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra upheld the amendment made to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, requiring a practice of 3 years or a law degree with 70% marks for eligibility to sit for the Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Examination.

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court gave this observation in the case of Devansh Kaushik v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

What was the Background of Devansh Kaushik v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• The Madhya Pradesh government amended Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, introducing an additional eligibility criterion for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level).
• The amended rule required either
  • continuous practice as an advocate for at least 3 years on the last date of submitting applications, or
  • being an outstanding law graduate with a brilliant academic career, having passed all exams in the first attempt with at least 70% aggregate marks for General and OBC categories, and at least 50% for reserved categories.
• The writ petition in this case was filed challenging the amendment, as the petitioner, a law graduate with 66.2% aggregate marks, did not meet the 70% criteria.
• Several other writ petitions were filed, and interim orders were granted by the High Court, including relaxation of marks for OBC candidates, consideration of changed subjects, and waiver of the requirement to produce six order sheets for one year.
• Later, the Supreme Court directed the HC to allow all candidates to participate in the recruitment examination based on the unamended rules, subject to the outcome of the challenge before the HC.
• The HC accepted all applications as per the unamended rules, and the matters were heard finally.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court dismissed most of the petitioners' contentions challenging the amendment requiring 70% marks in aggregate for general/OBC candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates in the first attempt to be eligible for the judicial service examination.
• The court upheld the impugned amendment as it has a nexus with the object of ensuring qualitative dispensation of justice and achieving excellence as per Article 51A(j) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The court ruled that the 70% marks requirement for outstanding law graduates is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The only relief granted was regarding Note (4) of the advertisement, where the court held that insisting on producing six order sheets/judgments per year of practice is directory and not mandatory.
  • Candidates only need to produce material to support their claim of active practice.
• The court emphasized that excellence should precede over mediocrity, and the interests of litigants in receiving quality justice from the best candidates outweigh the individual interests of the petitioners.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

• Article 14:
  • The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 19 (1) (g):
  • All citizens shall have the right
    • to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• Article 51A (j):
  • It shall be the duty of every citizens of India
    • to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.