The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea that challenges constitutional validity of the recently amended Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules, 1970 (the Rules).

 The Bench comprising  of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav have  rejected the plea which was moved saying that they  are unable to accept that Rule 9(2), as set out above, falls foul of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. 

On the contrary, Rule 9(2) of the Rules is in conformity with the decision in the case of Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors.

In this case the plea was moved by a lawyer Praveen Garg who argued that Rule 9(2) of the Rules falls foul of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India as the same does not expressly require a candidate to be in continuous practice of at least 7 years to be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge.

The Rule 9(2) was recently  amended on February 2, 2022 after the Top  Court said that the qualifications for direct recruits shall be as follows: (1) He must be a citizen of India. (2)He must have been continuously practising as an Advocate for not less than seven years as on the last date of receipt of applications. (3) He must have attained the age of 35 years and have not attained the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited.

As per the Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, any person who is not currently in service of the Union or the State can be eligible to be appointed as a District Judge only if he was an advocate or pleaser for 7 years or more as recommended by the High Court for appointment.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Prateek Gupta appeared who  submitted that the petitioner had practiced as an advocate cumulatively for a period of 7 years and 2 months and was right candidate under the eligibility criteria mentioned in Article 233(2).
Rule 9(2) requires an applicant to be in continuous practice of at least 7 years as on the date of the application.

The counsel of petitioner said that petitioner secured 584.5 marks out of 1000 marks in Delhi High Judiciary Examination which were higher than the marks secured by the candidate placed at the 32nd position of the selection list but his name was not included in the list on ground of not meeting  eligibility criteria.

Respondent counsel said that the Court noted and relied upon the interpretation of Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India, that means seven years immediately preceding his appointment/application and not seven years at any time in the past.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as unmerited.

Surinder S Rathi, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Services has been appointed as an Officer on Special Duty-cum-Registrar to the Hon’ble Chief Justice Delhi High Court, w.e.f. July 1 vide notification dated 30.06.2020 on deputation basis for a period of One year.  

Prior to his appointment Mr. Rathi was serving as Registrar in the Supreme Court of India. He also worked as a Director of NALSA before his appointment to the Registrar of Supreme Court. He also worked as a Guardian Judge and has a keen interest in Painting, Photography and Web Designing.

On many previous occasions he has been appointed as an ‘Officer of the Court’ to assist Courts in matters related to POCSO etc. In one of the matters, the Supreme Court had appointed him to gather data on the status of cases pending under POCSO, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and how states have fared in handling cases. The Supreme Court bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had took note of the report submitted by Mr Rathi and said the POCSO Act provides that the trials in cases of sexual offences against children have to be completed within a year. The Case titled as “In-re Alarming Rise in The Number of Reported Child Rape Incidents”. Mr Rathi also submitted the Draft Scheme for compensation to the Victims.

Agreeing with the Report of Registrar Mr Rathi, the court had said, “it appears that one major reason for the inability of the stake holders to meet the deadline stipulated under the Act is lack of awareness and lack of dedication in completing investigation, etc. within the time frame stipulated and also inadequacy of the number of courts which has resulted in cases remaining pending beyond the period mandated for completion of trial under the Act.”

In one of the matter before the Supreme Court wherein the Court had tagged several petitions related to the Safety and Security of women. Mr. Rathi had submitted the report on ‘NALSA’s Compensation Scheme for Sexual Assault & Acid Attack Victims’ prepared by him while he was serving as Director of NALSA in consultation with the Union Government.

The Report was approved by the Supreme Court bench presided by then Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta and they had ordered that the scheme should be implemented in all states and union territories.

Read the notification here;

-India Legal Bureau