The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant a one-time relaxation to in-service court employees seeking appointment to the judicial service, who sought exemption from the requirement of actual practice at the Bar.
The issue was raised before a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. The petitioners argued that several States, including Karnataka, had previously treated serving court employees as eligible for judicial recruitment, and their position had changed following the Supreme Court’s directions on the practice requirement.
Also Read: 3 Years to 1 Year: SC Relaxes Practice Requirement For Entry-Level Judicial Service
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel submitted that the in-service category had not been specifically considered when the Court introduced the practice requirement. He pointed out that different States were interpreting the directions differently, resulting in court employees being eligible in some States but ineligible in others.
“
“Till your Lordships’ judgment in All India Judges, many States, including Karnataka, never thought these persons were ineligible. Your Lordships never really considered the in-service category at all,” counsel submitted.
Counsel also sought a one-time relaxation, arguing that the change in eligibility had affected employees who had been working in courts and had planned their careers under the earlier rules. He suggested that they be given one opportunity to participate in the recruitment process. The CJI, however, questioned whether experience as a court employee could be treated as a substitute for actual practice at the Bar.
“
“They will have to have that confidence of leaving this zone, get rid of this sense of security, come in the open field, do practice for one year, and take a chance. But those who have already played their innings working somewhere, well, they are also welcome. But then they should also come through the same channel,” CJI Surya Kant remarked.
Justice V Mohana also observed that court employees perform functions that lawyers may not necessarily undertake, but said this did not make them a separate channel for entry into the judicial service.
On the differing approaches adopted by States in implementing the Court’s directions, CJI observed that the requirement of one year of actual practice was clear and that any State departing from the directions could be brought to the Court’s notice. When counsel pressed for a one-time relaxation, the CJI declined the request, stating:
“
“As of now we would not like to relax this condition.”
The issue arises from the Supreme Court’s August 21, 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust, which modified the earlier three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial recruitment. Under the transitional arrangement, law graduates applying under recruitment notifications issued up to March 31, 2027, are eligible without prior practice, while subsequent recruitment notifications will require one year of actual practice at the Bar.
Keywords: Judicial Services Examinations