Home / Current Affairs

Civil Law

Status of Chhattisgarh Judicial Exam

    «
 12-Mar-2025

Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh 

“A candidate who is a Law Graduate, whether or not is enrolled as an Advocate, would hardly make any difference as he/she will also have to go through the same scrutiny which the other candidate, who is enrolled as an Advocate, has to go.” 

Chief Justice Ramesh Singh and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal   

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court   

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Singh and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal  held that Bar enrollment is not a justified prerequisite for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024. 

  • The Chhattisgarh High Court  held this in the matter of Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025).

What was the Background of Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh? 

  • Ms. Vinita Yadav, a government servant and Law Graduate from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, sought to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024 conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. 
  • On 5th July 2024, the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh issued a Gazette Notification substituting clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. 
  • The amended rule mandated that candidates must not only possess a law degree from a recognized university but also be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. 
  • Subsequently, on 23th December, 2024, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2024, which incorporated this requirement of registration as an Advocate. 
  • The petitioner, being a full-time government employee, was statutorily barred from enrolling as an Advocate under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits enrollment for individuals engaged in any full-time occupation. 
  • The last date for submission of online applications for the examination was 24th January, 2025. 
  • The petitioner filed a writ petition (WPS No. 608 of 2025) challenging the amended rule and the examination advertisement on the grounds that it unduly restricted her right to participate in the recruitment process. 
  • The petitioner contended that several other states including Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Delhi do not impose similar enrollment requirements for judicial service examinations. 
  • The petitioner argued that in Madhya Pradesh, being a practicing Advocate is merely an optional requirement for appearing in the Civil Judge examination. 
  • The petitioner cited Supreme Court decisions in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75), Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others (AIR 1981 SC 487), and All India Judges' Association & Others v. Union of India & Others (2002) 4 SCC 247 to support her contentions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Court prima facie observed that the petitioner's contentions appeared to have substantial merit warranting consideration. 
  • The Court held that in a selection process, the scope for candidates' participation should not be narrowed down by imposing unwarranted conditions. 
  • The Court opined that a more inclusive approach would allow for a wider pool of candidates, potentially resulting in the selection of better qualified individuals for the judicial service. 
  • The Court reasoned that a Law Graduate, whether enrolled as an Advocate or not, would undergo identical scrutiny during the selection process, rendering the enrollment distinction largely immaterial. 
  • The Court acknowledged that the imposition of such a condition appeared to lack rational basis when examined considering the Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner. 
  • The Court determined that as an interim measure, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates should be permitted to participate in the recruitment process subject to fulfillment of all other criteria. 
  • The Court directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to extend the deadline for submission of online applications, preferably by one month from 22nd January 2025. 
  • The Court ordered that the Commission should permit candidates to submit their applications even without enrollment as Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. 
  • The Court specified that its order would operate in rem (affecting all similarly situated individuals) rather than in personam (limited to the petitioner alone). 
  • The Court requested the High Court of Chhattisgarh (on its administrative side) to reconsider the impugned amendment in light of the Supreme Court judgments referenced by the petitioner. 
  • The Court clarified that participation of non-enrolled candidates in the recruitment process would remain subject to the final outcome of the petition. 
  • The Court Stated that the Apex Court is already seized of the issue and further having regard to the fact that the issue involved in the present petition is similar in nature, we deem it appropriate to adjourn this case at this stage keeping it pending awaiting the orders of the Apex Court in WP(C)No. 1022/1989.

What is the Matter of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (WP(C)No. 1022/1989)? 

Supreme Court Order in All India Judges Association case (19th April 2022) 

  • This order addresses modifications to the promotion requirements for judicial officers to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS): 
  • Original Requirements:  
    • Previously required 5 years of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be eligible for promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).  
    • LDCE quota was reduced from 25% to 10% in a 2010 order. 
  • Issue Identified:  
    • Delhi has a unique situation where Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) perform the same work. 
    • The ratio of positions is 80:20. 
    • This creates a bottleneck where qualified candidates can't meet the 5-year Senior Division requirement. 
  • Modification Granted:  
    • The Court modified its previous orders to allow judicial officers with either: a) 7 years qualifying service (5 years as Junior Division + 2 years as Senior Division), OR b) 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division). 
    • This modification applies only to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. 

Recent Supreme Court Order (March 2025) 

  • This appears to be a more recent order regarding judicial appointments in Gujarat: 
  • Issue: Whether minimum years of practice as a lawyer should be required for applying to JMFC and Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions. 
  • Status:  
    • This matter is pending before a three-judge bench. 
    • The case has been heard and reserved for judgment. 
  • Court Action:  
    • Stayed the recruitment proceedings initiated by Gujarat High Court. 
    • Issued notices to Gujarat High Court and State of Gujarat. 
    • Set return date as 18th March 2025. 

Similar Incident in Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Recruitment Controversy 

    • Rule Amendment and Initial Challenge: The Madhya Pradesh High Court amended Rule 7(g) of the MP Judicial Service Rules to require three years of legal practice for entry-level judiciary positions, which was promptly challenged by candidates who sought provisional permission to apply without meeting this requirement. 
    • Supreme Court's Initial Relief: After the High Court denied provisional applications, petitioners approached the Supreme Court, which granted interim relief allowing candidates to apply for the examination regardless of whether they met the three-year practice requirement or the 70% marks in LLB requirement. 
    • Recruitment Proceeds Amid Legal Uncertainty: Despite the ongoing challenge to the amended rules in the Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh judiciary issued an advertisement on 17th November 2023, and conducted the preliminary examination on 14th January 2024. 
    • Validation of Amended Rules: During the recruitment process, both the High Court and Supreme Court ultimately upheld the validity of the amended rules requiring three years of practice, creating a situation where examinations had been conducted with participation from candidates who did not meet the now-confirmed eligibility criteria. 
    • Petition for Revaluation: After the preliminary results were announced and the main examination conducted, a petition was filed seeking revaluation of the preliminary results, arguing that the inclusion of ineligible candidates artificially raised the cut-off score, preventing eligible candidates with lower scores from advancing. 
    • High Court's Initial Dismissal and Reversal: The High Court initially dismissed the revaluation petition but later reversed its decision upon review, acknowledging "palpable errors" in its understanding of how cut-off marks would be affected by the inclusion of ineligible candidates. 
    • Critical Judicial Finding: In its review order dated 13th June 2024, the High Court explicitly stated that the recruitment process "deviated from the amended rules" by failing to exclude ineligible candidates at every stage, beginning with the preliminary examination. 
    • Procedural Correction Ordered: The High Court issued a notification requiring all candidates who had secured minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination to submit documentation verifying their eligibility under the three-year practice requirement, effectively implementing a retroactive screening process. 
    • Appeal to Supreme Court and Ongoing Delay: The High Court's review order was challenged in the Supreme Court, with a hearing expected in January 2025, resulting in a significant delay of approximately 11 months in the recruitment process with no updates on revised preliminary results or main examination results. 
    • Fundamental Legal Tension: This case highlights the tension between administrative efficiency in conducting timely recruitment for essential judicial positions and ensuring strict compliance with eligibility rules, demonstrating how procedural irregularities at early stages of a multi-phase recruitment process can cascade into complex legal challenges that are difficult to remedy without significant disruption. 

What is the Current status of Chhattisgarh Judicial Exam? 

  • The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) had initially announced the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2024 with applications to be submitted between 26th December 2024, and 24th January 2025. 
  • Following the High Court's interim order in Ms. Vinita Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 608 of 2025), the Commission has extended the application deadline to 23rd February 2025, through a corrigendum issued on 23rd January 2025. 
  • The High Court has directed that law graduates who are not enrolled as advocates can now provisionally apply for the examination, subject to the final outcome of the petition. 
  • The matter is currently pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court with the next hearing scheduled for 17th February 2025. 
  • The case bears similarities to the Madhya Pradesh judicial service recruitment controversy, where examinations proceeded despite ongoing litigation regarding eligibility criteria. 
  • In the Madhya Pradesh case, the preliminary examination was conducted in January 2024 while challenges to the amended rules were still pending before the Supreme Court. 
  • Based on the Madhya Pradesh precedent, there is a possibility that the Chhattisgarh preliminary examination might proceed as scheduled on 18th May 2025, despite the ongoing legal challenge. 
  • However, this would be subject to there being no explicit stay order from the court and would likely be conditional on the understanding that non-enrolled candidates' participation remains provisional. 
  • The case is complicated by the fact that the Supreme Court is currently seized of a similar matter regarding minimum practice requirements for judicial appointments in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India (WP(C)No. 1022/1989). 
  • Candidates should prepare for the examination while staying alert to potential legal developments that could affect the examination schedule or eligibility criteria.