The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the amendment brought in 2023 in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which added an additional eligibility qualification for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level).
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier upheld the amendment, which stipulated the eligibility of at least three years of practice or 70 percent marks in law graduation for entry-level judicial service candidates in Madhya Pradesh.
It further stipulated that all those who had practised continuously as an advocate for not less than three years on the last date fixed for submission of applications were eligible to apply.
The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra today dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the grounds that there was no reason to interfere with the High Court verdict.
As per the amendment, in the alternative, an outstanding Law Graduate with a brilliant academic career, having passed all exams on the first attempt by securing at least 70 percent marks in the aggregate, was eligible to apply.
The present petitioner had sought before the High Court to set this amendment aside and argued that it was ultra vires to several articles of the Constitution, including Article 14 (Right to equality).
However, the High Court was of the view that the object of the amendment was a ‘qualitative’ dispensation of justice. It held that excellence should always have precedence over mediocrity.
It further observed that the amendment did not deny opportunity, adding that the options for the candidates were two-fold.
It noted that all this went to enhance the quality of the judgments which, in turn, affected the litigants at large.
The object to achieve these results did not call for any interference whatsoever. It cannot be just a dream of a candidate to become a judge. One has to possess the highest of standards to join the judiciary, added the High Court.
It further weighed the interest of the litigants in such cases. It observed that the interest of the litigants was far more important than the interest of the individual petitioner. The High Court also observed that accepting the arguments of the petitioners would only maintain the existing subpar standards that have persisted for decades.
For decades a minimum qualification was sufficient. There has been no attempt to ensure the enhancement of quality. It is for the first time that the High Court has attempted to do so, it added.
In light of these observations, the Court declined to declare the impugned amendment as either unconstitutional or ultra vires the Constitution.