In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has declared that advocates do not need continuous seven years of practice to qualify for the position of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The court’s decision diverges from a previous Delhi High Court ruling which mandated continuous experience.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Satyen Vaidya, examined Rule 5(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004. They concluded that the rule simply requires advocates to have a minimum of seven years of experience by the application deadline, without stipulating that the experience must be uninterrupted.
“There is no requirement that such practice as an Advocate must be continuous as on the date of making application for the said post,” stated the Court, further noting that Article 233(2) of the Constitution, governing the appointment of district judges, does not support the notion of continuous practice.
This ruling came during the court’s consideration of a petition challenging the selection process for an Additional District and Sessions Judge position. The petitioner, Sandeep Sharma, argued that Advocate Parveen Garg, who was selected, did not meet the continuous practice requirement due to a break in his legal career. Garg had worked as a District Legal Officer and Civil Judge-II in Madhya Pradesh, leading to interruptions in his practice as an advocate.
Garg had previously faced disqualification in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination for similar reasons. Despite this, the Himachal Pradesh High Court determined that Garg’s cumulative active practice from 2012 to 2015 and from 2018 to 2022 sufficed for eligibility under Rule 5(c).
However, the court did agree with a Supreme Court ruling which stated that judicial service experience cannot be counted towards the required advocacy experience. Consequently, the court invalidated the “Note” under Clause (c) of Rule 5, which permitted the inclusion of judicial service in the calculation of advocacy experience.
Despite this, the court upheld Garg’s appointment, affirming that his active practice periods collectively met the seven-year requirement.
Legal representation in the case included Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan and Advocate Sohail Khan for the petitioner, Senior Advocate JL Bhardwaj with Advocate Komal Chaudhary for the High Court, and Deputy Advocate General Arsh Rattan for the State. Respondents were represented by Advocates Prateek Gupta, Praveen Chandel, and Ashwani Sharma.
Sandeep_Sharma_vs_Hon_ble_High_Court_of_Himachal_Pradesh_and_others
