Supreme Court clarifies, Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for Direct Recruitment as District Judges

On October 09, 2025, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that a person who has been, or is in, judicial service and has an aggregate of 7 years or more experience as an advocate and/or judicial officer on the relevant date of application is eligible to be considered for direct recruitment as District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Indian Constitution. The SC opined, “We have held that injustice was meted out to the members of the judicial services, thereby, depriving them from participating in the selection process for the post of district judges by way of direct recruitment.” The five-judge bench of the SC, consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice KV Chandran, examined longstanding disputes about the ‘bar quota’ and the interpretation of earlier judgments (Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi). The Dheeraj Mor judgment, where the three-judge bench of the Court held that in-service candidates cannot seek direct recruitment as District Judges, was overruled by the top court. 

The Court was satisfied that the statutory and constitutional scheme allows for advocates and in-service judicial officers to be treated equally, until the minimum experience is on the date of application, showing they had been admitted to practice as an advocate or in-service judicial officer. While delivering the judgment, the SC bench ensured that the judgment wouldn’t affect processes or appointments already completed or made, respectively. The main issues addressed by the bench in the current judgment were:

1. “Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy? 
2. Whether the eligibility for appointment as a District Judge is to be seen only at the time of appointment or at the time of application or both? 
3. Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge? 
4. Whether a person who has been Civil Judge for a period of seven years or has been an Advocate and Civil Judge for a combined period of seven years or more than seven years would be eligible for appointment as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India?”

The Constitution bench opined, 

• “Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;
• The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application; 
• Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have seven years' combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate;
• A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution; 
• In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application. 
• It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right from Satya Narain Singh till Dheeraj Mor, which take a view contrary to what has been held…do not lay down the correct proposition of law.”

Dealing with the administrative implications, the Court invalidated any appointment rules that conflicted with its interpretation and directed State governments, in consultation with High Courts, to formulate or amend rules to comply with the judgment, providing a three-month compliance period. CJI Gavai, in his judgment, opined, “we are of the considered view that for bringing the advocates and the in-service candidates at the same level, it will be appropriate that the rules provide that an in-service candidate should be eligible for recruitment to the post of district judge directly only if he has a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and a judicial officer. Similarly, if an advocate is participating in the selection process and he was a member of judicial service in the past, then his experience as a judicial officer also cannot be ignored. His experience as an advocate prior to joining judicial service, his experience as a judicial officer and his experience as an advocate after leaving the judicial service will all have to be taken together. Such a candidate will be eligible only if he has a combined experience as an advocate and as a judicial officer for seven years.”

Moreover, the top court also said that a 7-year practice must be continuous, “We say so because say if a person has practised for five years and thereafter, he takes a break of ten years and thereafter practises for two years, there will be a disconnect with the legal profession. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that only such persons working either as an advocate/pleader including Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors or as a judicial officer who, on the date of application, have a continuous experience of either an advocate/pleader or a judicial officer or a combination thereof shall only be eligible to be considered for appointment as district judges through the stream of direct recruitment.” Law experts believe this ruling will redefine how district court judges are recruited nationally, help alleviate long-standing discontent by lower court judges, and urge states to adopt new rules for the selection of judges aligned with the Court's direction.