Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Wednesday, 05 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2020-02-19 dismissed

DHEERAJ MOR vs HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bench: 3 — Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat

In Brief

The Supreme Court clarified the eligibility criteria for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution. The Court held that members of subordinate judicial services cannot apply for the quota reserved for practicing advocates, even if they have 7 years' prior experience at the Bar. The phrase \"has been for not less than seven years an advocate\" requires continuous practice at the date of application and appointment. Once a person joins the judicial service, they must pursue promotion within that service and cannot compete for the advocates' quota. The two recruitment streams—promotion from judicial service and direct recruitment from the Bar—are separate and constitutionally distinct. The Court overruled the earlier decision in Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had suggested that judicial officers could participate in the selection process. The Court affirmed that High Court rules maintaining this distinction are valid and not discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Judicial Service Appointment Procedure Article 233 Direct Recruitment District Judge Bar Council Administrative Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login