Can serving judicial officers compete in the Bar quota for District Judge posts?

No. Serving judicial officers, even if they practiced as advocates for seven years before joining service, cannot compete in the Bar quota. They can become District Judges only through promotion or limited competitive departmental examination.

What happened to the earlier view in Vijay Kumar Mishra regarding eligibility of judicial officers?

The Supreme Court overruled the view in Vijay Kumar Mishra that allowed judicial officers to apply under the Bar quota. The Court clarified that Article 233 creates two separate streams and that the Bar quota is reserved exclusively for practicing advocates.

Are High Court rules that exclude judicial officers from the Bar quota valid?

Yes. The Court upheld the High Court rules that restrict Bar quota posts to advocates and exclude judicial officers. These rules were held to be consistent with Articles 233 to 235 and not violative of Articles 14 or 16.

Why did the Court stress the importance of separate Bar and service streams?

The Court explained that the Constitution deliberately brings in advocates through the Bar quota to ensure diversity of experience and thought in the judiciary, while judicial officers form a separate career stream with promotion-based advancement.

Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi (2020)

Q: Who is eligible to be directly recruited as a District Judge under Article 233(2) after the Dheeraj Mor judgment?

The Supreme Court held that only advocates who have at least seven years of continuous practice and are in active practice on the cut-off date, and at the time of appointment, are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges from the Bar quota.

Can serving judicial officers compete with practicing advocates for direct recruitment as District Judges under Article 233? This case gives a clear, final answer.

By Gulzar Hashmi

India

Published on 27 November 2025

Reading time: ~10 mins

Article 233 District Judge Bar Quota Judicial Officers

Quick Summary

This case is about who can be directly recruited as a District Judge under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. The main doubt was: can serving judicial officers also compete in the 25% Bar quota, or is that quota only for practicing advocates?

The Supreme Court, through a three-judge bench, held that:

Only practicing advocates with at least seven years of practice, who are in active practice on the cut-off date, can be considered under the Bar quota.
Once a person joins judicial service, they cannot go back and claim a Bar quota seat.
Judicial officers can become District Judges only through promotion or limited departmental competitive examination, not through direct recruitment from the Bar.

The Court also upheld High Court rules that restrict the Bar quota to advocates and overruled earlier decisions (like Vijay Kumar Mishra) that had allowed judicial officers to compete in that quota.

Issues Before the Court

How should Article 233 be correctly interpreted?
Especially, what does “from the Bar” mean in Article 233(2)?
Are High Court rules valid if they stop judicial officers from applying under the Bar quota for District Judge posts?
Can serving judicial officers (below the rank of District Judge) compete with advocates for direct recruitment as District Judges under the Bar quota?

Rules & Constitutional Provisions

Article 233 – Appointment of District Judges
Deals with how District Judges are appointed and distinguishes between recruitment from the Bar and from judicial service.
Article 234 – Recruitment of persons other than District Judges
Covers the process for filling posts in the subordinate judiciary below the rank of District Judge.
Article 235 – Control over subordinate courts
Gives High Courts control over posting, promotion and discipline of judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary.

Together, these Articles show that the Constitution creates two separate streams: advocates from the Bar, and officers in the judicial service.

Facts (Timeline Style)

Timeline

Creation of Bar Quota

Many States reserve about 25% of District Judge posts for direct recruitment from the Bar. This is meant to bring experienced advocates straight into the higher judiciary.

Three Types of Candidates

Different groups approached the Court:

Category 1: Judicial officers who had already practiced as advocates for seven years before joining service.
Category 2: Judicial officers who had completed seven years in judicial service itself.
Category 3: Candidates with mixed experience – some years as advocate and some years as judicial officer, together making seven years.

Dispute Reaches Supreme Court

All three categories wanted to apply under the Bar quota. Some High Court rules, however, restricted Bar quota posts only to advocates in active practice. This led to conflicting views and earlier judgments like Vijay Kumar Mishra, so a three-judge bench was formed to settle the law.

Timeline illustration for Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi case

Arguments – Petitioners vs Respondents

Petitioners (Candidates)

Article 233(2) allows recruitment from two sources – advocates from the Bar and judicial service. A person who had seven years of practice before entering service should not lose the benefit of that practice.
Their earlier advocate experience (or mixed experience of advocate plus judge) should be counted for the Bar quota.
High Court rules that stop judicial officers from applying as Bar candidates were said to be contrary to Article 233 and therefore unconstitutional.
They relied on earlier cases like Chandra Mohan v. State of UP and Vijay Kumar Mishra, where judicial officers were allowed to apply as Bar candidates if they resigned before appointment.

Respondents (High Courts & States)

Article 233(2) refers to direct recruitment only from the Bar. Once a person joins judicial service, he or she is no longer a member of the Bar.
Serving judicial officers should become District Judges only through promotion or limited departmental examinations, not by competing with advocates.
Candidates chose to enter judicial service voluntarily, so they cannot later claim Bar quota posts.
High Court rules that limit the Bar quota to practicing advocates are consistent with the Constitution and maintain a clear separation between the Bar stream and the service stream.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

3-Judge Bench

The Court, speaking mainly through Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Ravindra Bhat, gave a clear and firm interpretation of Article 233(2).

“Two Boats” Principle

The Court explained that a person cannot “sail in two boats”. Once a lawyer joins judicial service, he or she becomes a judicial officer and stops being a practicing advocate. That officer must now move forward only through the judicial service channel (promotion or departmental exam), not through the Bar quota.

Purpose of the Bar Quota

The 25% Bar quota exists to bring experienced advocates directly into the District Judiciary. Advocates bring a different kind of exposure: they deal daily with clients, other lawyers and judges, and therefore add fresh perspectives to the system. This diversity is intentional and must be preserved.

Practice on the Cut-off Date

For direct recruitment from the Bar, the candidate must:

Have at least seven years of practice as an advocate, and
Be in active practice on the cut-off date fixed in the recruitment notification, and
Continue to be an advocate on the date of appointment.

Experience as a judicial officer cannot be added to make up the seven years, and mixed experience (some years as advocate, some years as judge) does not satisfy Article 233(2).

Overruling of Earlier View

The Court held that the view in Vijay Kumar Mishra, which allowed judicial officers to be considered under the Bar quota if they resigned before appointment, was incorrect. That decision was expressly overruled. High Court rules restricting Bar quota posts to advocates were held to be valid and constitutional.

Judgment illustration for Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi

Ratio Decidendi

Two separate streams under Article 233:
The Constitution creates two distinct sources for District Judge posts: (a) practicing advocates with seven years of standing in the Bar quota, and (b) judicial service officers through promotion or departmental exam.
Serving judicial officers are not “advocates” for Article 233(2):
Once a person joins judicial service, they cease to be “advocate” under Article 233(2) and therefore cannot be considered from the Bar stream.
Active practice on the cut-off date is mandatory:
A Bar quota candidate must be in continuous, active practice as an advocate on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment. Mixed or combined experience is not enough.
High Court rules excluding judicial officers from Bar quota are valid:
Such rules properly reflect the structure of Articles 233–235 and do not violate Articles 14 or 16.

Why This Case Matters

It settles a long-running confusion about who can apply under the Bar quota for District Judge posts.
It protects the separate identity of the Bar and the judicial service in the recruitment process.
It clarifies that the Bar quota is not a shortcut for judicial officers but a special doorway for practicing advocates.
It affects service rules and recruitment notifications across many States and High Courts in India.

For students, this case is a must-remember precedent on Article 233, separation of streams, and eligibility for District Judge posts.

Key Takeaways (Exam Pointers)

Bar quota = only for practicing advocates with ≥ 7 years’ practice and active practice on the cut-off date.
Judicial officers cannot use Bar quota, even if they had 7 years’ practice before joining service.
Two separate channels: Bar (direct recruitment) and service (promotion/departmental exam).
High Court rules excluding judicial officers from Bar quota are constitutional and valid.
Earlier view in Vijay Kumar Mishra that allowed judicial officers to apply under Bar quota is overruled.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “BAR – NOT – BENCH”

Remember: Bar quota is for the Bar, not for the Bench.

B – Bar only: Direct District Judge posts are only for practicing advocates.
N – No mixed experience: Mixed judge + advocate experience does not qualify.
B – Bench by promotion: Judicial officers reach the Bench of District Judge only by promotion/departmental exam.

3-Step Classroom Hook

Step 1 – Imagine Two Gates

One gate says “Bar”, the other says “Service”. You must choose one gate at the start of your career.

Step 2 – No Jumping Gates

Once you enter the judicial service gate, you cannot run back and join the Bar gate for District Judge posts.

Step 3 – Different Ladders

The Bar ladder is direct recruitment. The service ladder is promotion and departmental exams. Each ladder stays separate.

IRAC Outline (Exam-Ready)

I – Issue

Whether serving judicial officers (including those with past or mixed Bar experience) are eligible to be directly recruited as District Judges under Article 233(2) through the Bar quota, and whether High Court rules that restrict Bar quota to practicing advocates are valid.

R – Rule

Article 233(2): candidate must be an advocate with 7 years’ practice.
Articles 234–235: High Courts have a central role in framing rules and controlling the subordinate judiciary.
Service and Bar are distinct streams for recruitment.

A – Application

The Court applied Article 233(2) strictly and held that:

“Advocate” means currently practicing advocate on the cut-off date.
Judicial officers have left the Bar stream and entered a separate service stream.
Allowing them in the Bar quota would collapse the two-stream structure of the Constitution.
High Court rules that reserve Bar quota only for practicing advocates, therefore, correctly reflect the Constitution.

C – Conclusion

Serving judicial officers, even with past or mixed Bar experience, cannot be recruited as District Judges under the Bar quota. They must become District Judges only through promotion or limited departmental examinations. High Court rules that exclude them from the Bar quota are valid, and earlier contrary decisions stand overruled.

Glossary (Student-Friendly)

Bar Quota: The portion of District Judge posts (usually 25%) reserved for direct recruitment of practicing advocates.
Judicial Officer: A person who has joined the subordinate judiciary, such as a Civil Judge or Senior Civil Judge, through the judicial service examination or other service route.
District Judge: The head of the district judiciary, who hears major civil and criminal matters and supervises other subordinate courts in the district.
Promotion Channel: The route through which judicial officers move up to higher posts like District Judge based on seniority, merit, and departmental examinations.
Direct Recruitment: Appointment of candidates directly into the post of District Judge from outside the judicial service, usually from the Bar, without starting at a lower judicial post.

FAQs (For Students)

Only those candidates who are practicing advocates with at least seven years of practice and who are in active practice on the cut-off date can apply under the Bar quota for District Judge posts.

That past practice does not help for the Bar quota once the person has joined judicial service. After joining service, they are treated only as a judicial officer, so they must use the promotion or departmental exam route to become a District Judge.

The Court felt that Vijay Kumar Mishra had blurred the line between the Bar stream and the service stream. Allowing judicial officers to resign and apply as Bar candidates would defeat the structure of Article 233, so that view was declared wrong and overruled.

No. The Court held that there is no discrimination because the Constitution itself creates two separate classes – advocates and judicial officers – and provides different routes for both. This is a valid classification, not hostile discrimination.

Mention this case whenever a question is on Article 233, direct recruitment of District Judges, eligibility of advocates, or separation of Bar and judicial service streams. Use the mnemonic “BAR – NOT – BENCH” and quote that serving judicial officers cannot claim Bar quota posts.