The Supreme Court of India, in an ad interim order on Friday, directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to permit candidates to appear for the judicial service examination without the mandatory qualification of being enrolled as an advocate. The Court also clarified that the requirement of three years’ experience at the bar, established in a recent judgment, will not apply to the ongoing selection process as it commenced prior to the said ruling.
The order was passed by a three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria while hearing a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment from the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, led by Urwashi Kour, filed a Special Leave Petition against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dated September 16, 2025. The challenge was directed against a condition stipulated in Advertisement Number 04/2024/Exam issued on December 23, 2024, for a judicial services examination.
Specifically, the petitioners contested Clause 3(iv)(B) of the advertisement, which required applicants to be enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. This eligibility criterion was the central issue brought before the Supreme Court after being addressed by the High Court.
Court’s Ad Interim Order and Directions
After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, including the State of Chhattisgarh, making it returnable in four weeks. The Court then proceeded to pass a significant ad interim order to protect the interests of the petitioners pending a final decision.
The bench directed the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 2) to provisionally allow petitioners to participate in the examination. The Court’s order stated:
“By way of an ad interim order, we direct that the Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission (Respondent No.2) shall permit such of the petitioners, who possess the requisite qualification, excluding the one provided under Clause 3(iv)(B) of Advertisement Number 04/2024/Exam dated 23.12.2024, i.e. enrollment as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (No. 25 of 1961).”
However, the Court attached a crucial rider to this permission, clarifying that the participation of the petitioners would be subject to the final outcome of the case. The order noted, “we clarify that the appearance of the petitioners in the examination shall not create any equity in their favour.”
On the Requirement of Three Years’ Experience
The Supreme Court also addressed the applicability of its recent judgment in All Indian Judges Association Vs. Union of India (2025 SCC Online SC 1184), delivered on May 28, 2025, which had mandated a three-year experience at the Bar for judicial service candidates.
The bench observed that the advertisement in question was issued and the selection process had already commenced before this judgment was pronounced. Consequently, the Court ruled that this new eligibility criterion could not be retroactively applied to the present selection process.
The order explicitly states:
“It is also made clear that since the advertisement was issued and the selection process had commenced prior to the judgment of this Court dated 28.05.2025 in the matter of All Indian Judges Association Vs. Union of India… the Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission shall not insist upon the requirement of three years’ experience at the Bar for the candidates.”
The matter is scheduled to be heard next after four weeks, following the respondents’ reply to the notice.
