Judicial Officers Can Compete for Bar-Quota District Judge Posts: Constitution Bench Overrules Dheeraj Mor

Article 233(2) makes a person “not already in the service of the Union or of the State” eligible for appointment as District Judge if he “has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader”. For years, that text was read — most recently in Dheeraj Mor (2020) — to mean that a civil judge who had earlier practised at the Bar could never compete in the Bar quota: the seven years had to be continuous practice, current on the date of application. Talented judicial officers who had joined the bench early thus found both doors narrowed — too junior for promotion, disqualified from direct recruitment.

A three-judge bench referred the question to five judges in August 2025; the Constitution Bench answered on 9 October 2025, with the Chief Justice writing the lead opinion and Justice Sundresh concurring.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does Article 233(2) exclude in-service judicial officers from the Bar quota for District Judge appointments — and must the seven years' practice be continuous and current?

“Has Been an Advocate” Looks to the Past, Not the Present

The Court held that the expression “has been for not less than seven years an advocate” is satisfied by a candidate's cumulative professional history: it does not require that the candidate be practising on the date of the application, and it does not erase years spent at the Bar merely because the candidate later joined judicial service. Seven years of combined experience — as an advocate and as a judicial officer — qualifies. Reading Article 233(2) as a perpetual disqualification for judicial officers, the Bench reasoned, serves no constitutional purpose: the provision channels talent into the district judiciary, and penalising those who chose judicial service early inverts that object. Dheeraj Mor was accordingly overruled, and States and High Courts were directed to bring their recruitment rules in line within the time fixed.

What the Court Actually Held

• In-service judicial officers are eligible to compete in the Article 233(2) direct-recruitment (Bar) quota for District Judges.
• Seven years' experience may be made up of service as an advocate and as a judicial officer, combined; current practice on the application date is not required.
• Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) was overruled.
• States and High Courts were directed to amend their recruitment rules accordingly.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reopens the fastest route to the District Judge cadre for hundreds of young judicial officers who joined the bench after a few years at the Bar.
• It replaces a formalist reading of Article 233(2) with a purposive one centred on attracting talent to the district judiciary.
• Every State's District Judge (Entry Level) examination rules must now be rewritten — eligibility disputes under the old rules will be tested against this judgment.
• Together with the Court's parallel reforms of judicial-service eligibility, it redraws the career map of the subordinate judiciary.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Judicial Officers and Aspirants

• Compute your combined Bar-plus-bench years: at seven, the direct-recruitment quota is open, whatever Dheeraj Mor-era rules still say on paper.

For High Courts and Recruiting Bodies

• Amend recruitment rules and pending notifications promptly; eligibility rejections based on the overruled reading invite certain litigation.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Civil judges and other judicial officers who practised at the Bar before joining service: their combined experience now counts toward the seven years that Article 233(2) requires for direct recruitment as District Judge.

No. “Has been an advocate” looks to cumulative experience, not current enrolment in practice on the date of application.

States and High Courts were directed to amend their recruitment rules to conform to the judgment; the old exclusionary reading no longer survives.

Conclusion