In Brief
A practising advocate challenged the appointment of two retired judges as Additional Judges of Rajasthan High Court, arguing the appointments violated Article 224 (being less than two years) and Article 217(2)(a) (judges had retired from Judicial Service). The Supreme Court held that Article 224 permits appointment for any period not exceeding two years, including when tenure ends at superannuation age of 62. The Court clarified that Article 217(2)(a) requires a person to have 'held' judicial office for ten years—a past qualification—not necessarily to hold office at the time of appointment notification. Retired judicial officers meeting this criterion remain eligible. The petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized the need for expedited appointment processes to fulfil constitutional objectives.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.