On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a notice in a petition wherein the petitioner had sought to quash the prerequisite condition of 3 years of practice as a lawyer to be eligible for Civil Judge Exam in Andhra Pradesh.
The Bench stated that the instant matter was not urgent and should not be heard during the vacation.
Hon’ble Court issued notice to the respondent, and the Court will now take up the matter on 05.01.2021.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 2004 the Apex Court held that there was no need to practice for some years or be a registered Advocate to apply judicial services.
The Court then proceeded to ask the petitioner why the plea was moved before the Supreme Court. Petitioner’s Counsel replied that the deadline for receiving the application was 02.01.2021; therefore, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
It was submitted that according to the Supreme Court judgement, only the Apex Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The plea was filed by a person who is a Judiciary aspirant, and the plea states that the prerequisite of work experience was a violation of Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
The plea also stated that Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh however, both the States are supervised by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana.
In 2017, Andhra Pradesh government notified certain amendments wherein one of the amendments was to apply for Civil Judge post; an aspirant needs an experience of three years as an Advocate.
After the release of the notification, writ petitions challenging the amendment were filed in the common High Court, while the petitions were pending the States of Telangana and AP were bifurcated after the bifurcation, some petitions were transferred to High Court of Telangana, and Hon’ble High Court ruled that such an amendment was unconstitutional. The Court held that such an amendment was against the judgement rendered in All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors
Lastly, the Learned Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has opined against the rule that a person needs to practice for three years to enter judicial services.