In Brief
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of two Additional Judges to the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner contested that the appointments were for less than two years (contrary to Article 224) and that the appointees were ineligible as they had retired from the Judicial Service before their formal notification. The Court held that Article 224 does not mandate minimum tenure and Article 224(3) requires judges to cease office at 62 years, making shorter appointments lawful when superannuation is imminent. The Court also clarified that Article 217(2)(a)'s eligibility requirement—holding judicial office for 10 years—refers to past holding, not current employment, making retired eligible judges still eligible for appointment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.