Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi

There are three ways to become a District Judge. At the time of Dheeraj Mor, about 65% of posts were filled by promoting judicial officers. About 10% were filled through a limited departmental competitive exam for judicial officers. The remaining 25% were filled by direct recruitment from the Bar, that is, from practising advocates. (According to the lecture, in May 2025 the Supreme Court raised the departmental exam share back to 25%, so the split is now 50:25:25.)

The dispute was whether people already in judicial service could also apply under the 25% direct recruitment quota. Cases were filed by three categories of people:

(1) Serving judicial officers who had practised as advocates for seven years before joining the service.

(2) Judicial officers who had completed seven years of judicial service and wanted it treated as equal to an advocate's experience.

(3) Persons with mixed experience, partly as advocate and partly as judicial officer, adding up to seven years.

All of them wanted to apply under the Bar quota. The High Court rules stopped them from doing so.

1. What is the correct interpretation of Article 233?

2. Are the High Court rules that stop judicial officers from applying under the Bar quota unconstitutional, that is, ultra vires (made beyond power)?

3. Can judicial officers below the rank of District Judge compete with outside lawyers for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment?

Petitioners:

- Article 233(2) points to two sources, the Bar and judicial service.
- A person who practised for seven years before entering judicial service should have the right to apply under the Bar quota.
- Combined experience as judge and advocate is counted in several places, so it should be counted here too.
- High Court rules barring judicial officers from the Bar quota violate Article 233.
- Relying on Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966), they argued that Article 233 does not exclude people from judicial service.
- They pointed out that in the Vijay Kumar Mishra case (2016) it was held that a judicial officer could apply, but would have to resign from service before appointment.

Respondents (the High Courts):

- Under Article 233(2), direct recruitment happens only from the Bar.
- A person already in judicial service is not even eligible for direct recruitment and must become a District Judge through promotion.
- These officers joined judicial service of their own will, so they cannot now claim the Bar quota.
- Their path is clear: promotion and the limited departmental exam.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court rules and rejected the petitioners' claims.

Reasoning of Justice Arun Mishra: The lecture calls this the 'two-boats principle'. Judicial officers already have their own channels, promotion and the limited competitive exam. If you remain an advocate, you may apply under the Bar quota. Once you join judicial service, you cannot claim it. You cannot keep one foot in each of two boats. The Bar quota exists so that practising lawyers, with real courtroom experience and a different way of thinking, enter the judiciary. The same thinking supports direct appointments from the Bar to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. A direct recruit must be in active practice on the cut-off date. Neither judicial service experience nor mixed experience counts.

Reasoning of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat: The Constitution creates only two categories. The first is advocates with seven years of practice. The second is persons in judicial service, for whom promotion is provided. This is not discrimination but the Constitution's own design, a constitutionally permitted classification. The Bar quota is meant to bring diversity of thought into the judiciary. An advocate stands between the public, the client and the court, and brings a fresh perspective.

Final conclusions:

(a) Persons in judicial service, such as a Civil Judge, can become District Judges only through promotion or the limited competitive exam.

(b) The Governor appoints, posts and promotes District Judges only in consultation with the High Court, subject to its control.

(c) Eligibility is decided by rules made under Articles 234 and 235.

(d) For direct recruitment, the candidate must be an advocate with at least seven years of practice under Article 233(2). He must be an advocate both on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment.

(e) Persons in judicial service, or with mixed experience, cannot apply under the Bar quota.

(f) The High Court rules are constitutional and do not violate Articles 14, 16 and 233.

(g) The view taken in Vijay Kumar Mishra (2016) was held to be wrong.

Later development: On 9 October 2025, in Rejanish K. V. v. K. Deepa, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai expressly overruled Dheeraj Mor. Judicial officers can now apply for direct recruitment as District Judges if their combined experience as advocate and judicial officer adds up to seven years. The experience is counted as on the date of application, and the minimum age is 35 years. The ruling is prospective, so earlier appointments are not disturbed.

Constitution of India, Article 233 (appointment of District Judges); Article 233(1) (Governor appoints, posts and promotes District Judges in consultation with the High Court); Article 233(2) (a person not already in the service of the Union or a State must have been an advocate or pleader for at least seven years and be recommended by the High Court); Article 234 (recruitment of subordinate judiciary other than District Judges); Article 235 (High Court's control over subordinate courts); Article 14; Article 16; High Court recruitment rules for District Judges

The case is central to understanding how District Judges are recruited under Articles 233 to 235. It explains the purpose of the Bar quota, which is to bring diversity of thought and courtroom experience into the judiciary. It also shows the 'two-boats' reasoning.

It is equally important because it has been overruled. In exams, students should write both points. Dheeraj Mor (2020) excluded judicial officers from the Bar quota. Rejanish K. V. v. K. Deepa (2025) opened this path to judicial officers with combined seven years' experience. Together they show how the interpretation of Article 233 has evolved.

Hypothetical: Prince practised as an advocate for seven years and then became a Civil Judge. Farhan is an advocate with eight years of active practice. Both apply for District Judge posts under the 25% direct recruitment (Bar) quota.

Under Dheeraj Mor (2020), only Farhan is eligible. Prince has joined judicial service and must use promotion or the limited departmental exam.

Under Rejanish K. V. v. K. Deepa (2025), Prince can also apply. His combined experience as advocate and judicial officer is at least seven years on the date of application, provided he is at least 35 years old.