Question 1

The Supreme Court abolished the 25 percent Bar quota for District Judges.

Accepted Answer

The 25 percent direct recruitment quota still exists and operates as before, but it is no longer exclusive to practicing advocates; eligible serving judicial officers can now compete alongside advocates.

Question 2

In-service civil judges can now be appointed to District Judge posts without any mandatory experience threshold.

Accepted Answer

A candidate still must have a minimum of seven years of experience, but this can now be a combined experience consisting of their time as an advocate and their time as a judicial officer.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate's eligibility for direct recruitment as a District Judge must be assessed on the date of appointment.
2. The judgment explicitly overruled the 2020 Dheeraj Mor verdict, which had barred in-service candidates from the direct recruitment channel.
3. The minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge under this route was uniformly set at 35 years for both advocates and judicial officers.
How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

(b) Only two — Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court clarified that eligibility is to be assessed on the date of application, not the date of appointment, as the latter can be delayed by administrative processes. Statement 2 is correct: The 2020 Dheeraj Mor judgment was overruled. Statement 3 is correct: The Court mandated a uniform minimum age of 35 years for both streams to ensure parity.

Question 4

Match the following judicial pronouncements with their primary relevance to District Judiciary appointments:

List I (Case)
A. Chandra Mohan v. State of UP (1966)
B. All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (2002)
C. Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020)
D. Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa (2025)

List II (Relevance)
1. Prescribed the 50:25:25 quota system for District Judge appointments
2. Reinterpreted Article 233(2) allowing combined 7-year experience for in-service judges
3. Held that in-service candidates can only be appointed via promotion, barring them from direct recruitment
4. Early interpretation affirming that Article 233 is a self-contained code for judicial appointments

Select the correct code:

Accepted Answer

(a) A-4, B-1, C-3, D-2 — A matches 4 (Chandra Mohan established foundational principles that Article 233 governs judicial appointments). B matches 1 (All India Judges' Association established the exact 50:25:25 ratio for promotion, limited exam, and direct recruitment). C matches 3 (Dheeraj Mor restricted direct recruitment strictly to practicing advocates). D matches 2 (Rejanish K.V. overturned Dheeraj Mor, allowing in-service judges to compete based on combined experience).

Question 5

Assertion (A): In the 2025 Rejanish K.V. judgment, the Supreme Court permitted serving judicial officers to compete for direct recruitment to District Judge posts under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
Reason (R): The Court concluded that interpreting Article 233(2) to create a separate quota exclusively for practicing advocates violates the fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 16.
Select the correct answer:

Accepted Answer

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A — Both statements are factually correct. In the judgment authored by CJI B.R. Gavai, the Court reasoned that excluding highly meritorious in-service candidates from competing directly against advocates amounted to an artificial and discriminatory classification. Because this violates the equal opportunity provisions of Articles 14 and 16, the Court reinterpreted Article 233(2) to allow civil judges to compete. Thus, the Reason correctly explains the Assertion.

Eligibility of Judicial Officers for District Judge Quota

CAG Report on Union Government Accounts 2023-24