In Brief
District Judges directly recruited in 2011 with prior Bar experience sought to club their advocacy years with judicial service to meet the 10-year eligibility requirement for High Court appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 217(2) creates two separate recruitment streams—judicial service and the Bar—with no crossover. A person's status on the date of consideration determines which queue they occupy. The Court rejected clubbing advocacy years that preceded judicial service, emphasizing strict interpretation of constitutional language ("after" cannot mean "before"). Earlier precedents on pensionary benefits and Article 233 were inapplicable.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.