In Brief
The petitioners, judicial officers seeking promotion to higher court positions, contended that their years of practice as advocates before joining the judiciary should be counted together with their service years to meet minimum experience requirements. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, holding that eligibility status depends on a person's position on the consideration date. An advocate at that date belongs in the Bar queue; a judicial officer belongs in the service queue. The word 'after' in the constitutional provision cannot be read to include experience 'before' joining judicial service. The petition was dismissed as wholly untenable and misconceived.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.