SC overrules Dheeraj Mor, permits in-service judges in direct recruitment under Article 233

Case name: Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors. (with connected matters)

Date of Order: 09 October 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1208 (Constitution Bench Reference; C.A. No. 3947 of 2020 & connected matters)

Bench: Constitution Bench — B.R. Gavai, CJI (for the Bench); M.M. Sundresh, J. (concurring); Aravind Kumar, J.; Satish Chandra Sharma, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Held: The Supreme Court clarified Article 233: (i) Judicial officers who had already completed seven years at the Bar before joining service are eligible to be appointed as District/Additional District Judges through direct recruitment; (ii) eligibility is assessed on the date of application; (iii) to ensure a level playing field, an in-service candidate must have seven years’ combined experience as advocate and judicial officer; (iv) anyone in judicial service with combined experience of seven years or more (Bar + bench) is eligible under Article 233; and (v) minimum age 35 years for both streams.

The Court held prior views from Satya Narain Singh (1985) through Dheeraj Mor (2020) misconstrued Article 233 and do not lay down the correct law.

Summary:
• Reference & Issues: A batch of matters was referred to a Constitution Bench to decide if in-service judicial officers (with prior Bar practice) can compete for direct recruitment as District Judges; when to test eligibility; and what, if any, eligibility applies to in-service candidates under Article 233(2).

• Text & Scheme: Reading Article 233 literally and contextually, the Court reaffirmed two sources for District Judge appointments—service and Bar—and stressed that Clause (2) enables Bar candidates with seven years’ practice, without barring in-service officers from the direct stream.

• Correcting the Record: The Bench found that Satya Narain Singh and later cases culminating in Dheeraj Mor wrongly read a strict “Bar-only” rule for direct recruitment, ignoring that Article 233(1) is the source of appointment and that earlier Constitution Bench law (Rameshwar Dayal; Chandra Mohan) did not exclude in-service candidates.

• Level Playing Field Measures: To harmonise competition between the two streams, the Court prescribed combined 7-year experience for in-service aspirants and a 35-year minimum age for both streams, with eligibility pegged to the application date.

• Prospective Effect & Compliance: The ruling applies prospectively; past selections/appointments remain undisturbed (save where protected by interim orders). All State rules inconsistent with this judgment are quashed, and States/High Courts must frame/amend rules within 3 months.

Decision: The reference was answered in favour of permitting in-service judicial officers (meeting the combined-experience/age norms) to participate in direct recruitment to the District Judiciary. Inconsistent State rules were set aside, with directions to amend within three months; the ruling operates prospectively.