A petition has been lodged with the Supreme Court challenging a recent order from the Madhya Pradesh High Court that quashed an amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, concerning appointments to the post of District Judge.
The amendment, introduced in 2015, had permitted the High Court to fill the posts of District Judge (entry point) with serving judges from the district court if appropriate candidates could not be found from the Bar quota (advocate quota) in two consecutive examinations.
The plea, filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through its Registrar General, seeks an immediate direction to stay the disputed order dated April 4, 2025. According to the petition, filed via advocate Ashwani Dubey, the amendment was brought in as a solution to the extremely low number of successful candidates for the District Judge posts from the quota designated for practising lawyers with over seven years' experience.
The petition revealed that between 2011 and 2015, 304 vacancies were advertised across multiple recruitment drives in Madhya Pradesh, yet only 11 advocates were found suitable. Consequently, only 11 entry-level District Judge vacancies were filled through the direct recruitment of qualified lawyers. "This is tantamount to filling up a mere 3.61 per cent of the available posts earmarked to be filled by recruiting suitable lawyers," the plea stated.
"Consequently, a substantial number of vacancies for the post of District Judge (entry level) remained unfilled despite being duly advertised, leading to a sharp rise in the workload of the serving officers of the higher judiciary cadre of Madhya Pradesh. The manifold increase in workload further adversely affected the disposal rate and ultimately turned out to be a major hindrance in the smooth dispensation of justice in the state of Madhya Pradesh," the document argued.
The petition further noted that in light of this critical situation, the then-Chief Justice had made a detailed proposal offering various methods to resolve the issue of the underwhelming number of recruitments to the District Judge post, particularly through the direct recruitment channel.
"The Proviso to Rule 5(1)(c) was introduced as a necessary institutional response to the chronic failure of the direct recruitment process for District Judges through the quota reserved for lawyers, which remained ineffective since 2006," the plea asserted.
The petition contended that the High Court, in passing its quashing order (on petitions filed by candidates challenging the amendment), failed to appreciate the contextual and constitutional rationale behind the amendment. The plea maintains that the amendment does not establish an entirely new method of recruitment but acts as a conditional adjustment within the existing framework.
"Its purpose is to ensure continuity in judicial operations by filling long-standing vacancies and addressing systemic inefficiencies, thereby aligning with the broader constitutional goal of ensuring timely justice delivery," the High Court's petition concluded.
Also read: Supreme Court rejects Jacqueline's plea in ED case
Follow us
