A 3-judge bench of Supreme Court held that, Law graduates can be eligible for practicing law without having any experience but recommended that the newly hired judges under training for a period not less than 1 year and preferably two years.
All India Judges’ Association and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 21 Mar 2002In the All India Judges’s case [1993] 4 SCC 288 at p. 314; this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three year’s standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 year of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing we accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges’ cases direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one years, preferably two years. The Shetty Commission has recommended Assured Career Progessive Scheme and Functional Scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a Judicial Officer does not feel that he is stagnated there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.
Citations : [2002 CGLJ 3 361], [2002 SCALE 3 291], [2002 AIR SC 1752], [2002 ALD SC 3 39], [2002 ALT SC 4 41], [2002 AWC SC 2 395], [2002 BLJR 2 1144], [2002 FLR 93 628], [2002 GLR 3 2017], [2002 JCR SC 2 248], [2002 JT SC 3 503], [2001 SCALE 2 327], [2002 SCC 4 247], [2002 SCR 2 712], [2002 SCT SC 2 735], [2002 SLJ SC 2 480], [2002 UPLBEC 2 1246], [2001 LIC 34 2398], [2001 AIR SC 2543], [2002 SLR 3 271], [2002 KANTLJ 3 26], [2002 AIR SC 1706], [2002 SUPREME 3 180], [2002 SLT 3 4], [2002 SCJ 2 598], [2002 SRJ 5 246], [2002 LIC 1473], [2002 LLN 2 781], [2002 UPLBEC 2 480], [2003 ILR KAR 1 321], [2002 BLJ 2 586], [2002 PAT LJR 2 210], [2001 AIR SCW 2543], [2002 BOMCR SC 5 242], [2002 SCC LS 508], [2002 AIR SCW 1706]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125557979/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adb5e4b01497114120ad
