Judicial Officers Can Compete for Direct Recruitment as District Judges: Supreme Court Constitution Bench

What Article 233 Provides

Article 233 governs appointment, posting and promotion of District Judges. Clause (1) provides that such appointments are made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court. Clause (2) prescribes a seven-year advocacy requirement for a person not already in the service of the Union or of a State and requires a recommendation of the High Court.

The Constitution Bench held that Article 233 must be read as a self-contained constitutional provision and that it does not justify excluding serving judicial officers from consideration for direct recruitment merely because they are already in judicial service.

Questions Before the Constitution Bench

The Court considered, among other issues, whether a judicial officer who had already completed seven years at the Bar before entering subordinate judicial service could be considered for appointment as an Additional District Judge against a direct-recruitment vacancy, and when eligibility must be assessed.

The Court also examined whether judicial service and prior advocacy experience could be combined for determining the required period of experience.

Seven Years' Combined Experience Can Be Counted

The Constitution Bench held that an in-service candidate applying for direct recruitment should have seven years' combined experience as a judicial officer and an advocate. A candidate who has been or is in judicial service and has an aggregate of seven years or more as an advocate and/or judicial officer can therefore be considered for appointment as a District Judge or Additional District Judge, subject to the applicable recruitment process.

Experience Before and After Judicial Service

The Court clarified that where a candidate has practised as an advocate before entering judicial service, served as a judicial officer, and later returned to practice, the relevant periods can be taken together. The decisive requirement is the qualifying aggregate experience prescribed by the Court.

Minimum Age for Direct Recruitment

To provide a level playing field between advocates and judicial officers, the Constitution Bench directed that the minimum age for consideration and appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge through direct recruitment should be 35 years as on the date of application.

Dheeraj Mor Overruled on This Issue

The Constitution Bench held that the restrictive line of decisions culminating in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi did not correctly interpret Article 233. Those decisions had effectively prevented serving judicial officers from competing in the direct-recruitment stream.

Rejanish K.V. removed that exclusion and opened the direct-recruitment examination to eligible judicial officers, while retaining the constitutional role of the High Court and the recruitment rules governing the selection process.

Eligibility Is Examined at the Application Stage

The Court held that eligibility for appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be assessed at the time of application. Candidates must therefore satisfy the prescribed age, experience and other applicable conditions on the relevant cut-off date specified in the recruitment process.

Effect on State Higher Judicial Service Rules

The Constitution Bench directed that recruitment rules inconsistent with the legal position declared in the judgment would have to be brought into conformity with Article 233 as interpreted by the Court. High Courts and State Governments must therefore frame and apply Higher Judicial Service recruitment rules consistently with the Constitution Bench ruling.

Later Supreme Court Confirmation in All India Judges Association

On 19 November 2025, the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India referred to Rejanish K.V. and noted that serving judicial officers had been given an additional route for career advancement by participating in direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.

The later Constitution Bench also clarified that Rejanish K.V. did not hold judicial-service experience to be superior to advocacy experience; rather, it recognized that judicial experience is not inferior and can be reckoned for eligibility.

Key Legal Takeaways

• Serving judicial officers are eligible to compete in direct recruitment for District Judge/Additional District Judge posts.
• Seven years' combined experience as advocate and judicial officer may be counted for an in-service candidate.
• Past advocacy, judicial service and subsequent advocacy may be aggregated where applicable.
• The minimum age for direct recruitment is 35 years as on the date of application.
• Eligibility is tested at the application stage.
• The restrictive view in Dheeraj Mor and the earlier line of cases was held not to state the law correctly.
• Recruitment remains subject to the applicable High Court rules, competitive selection and constitutional requirements.

Download the Supreme Court Judgment

Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Others - Judgment dated 9 October 2025