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 HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

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

In Brief

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether judicial officers can apply for District Judge posts reserved for practicing advocates with seven years' experience. The Court held that while the Constitution provides two separate recruitment streams—promotion from within the judicial service and direct recruitment from the Bar—judicial officers cannot simultaneously compete for positions earmarked for advocates, regardless of prior practice as lawyers. Once someone joins judicial service, they lose eligibility for the advocates' quota. The 25% of District Judge positions reserved for Bar candidates are exclusively for those currently in continuous legal practice. The Court overruled a prior decision permitting judicial officers to participate in the selection process for Bar-reserved positions, affirming that the constitutional scheme maintains a clear dichotomy between the two recruitment streams to preserve diversity and independence in the judiciary.

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

Constitutional Law Judicial Appointments Administrative Law Civil Service Rules Article 233 District Judge Recruitment Judicial Service Bar Practice Separation of Powers Article 14 - Equality

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