The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition of an Advocate filed seeking direction to the respondents to allow her to appear in the main written exam of Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services.
The Petitioner has further prayed that if the exam has already been held then the High Court directs the respondent to take her main written examination separately, in the interest of justice.
It is the case of the petitioner that she is an advocate practising at different courts of Madhya Pradesh. She is continuously preparing and appearing in various judicial examinations of different States, including the State of Madhya Pradesh. During the period from 2017 to 2020, she has cleared every preliminary exam of Higher Judicial Services, but by a slight margin, she could not clear the main examinations.
It is submitted that she appeared in the preliminary examination of Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (District Judge– Entry Level) Direct Recruitment From Bar Exam, 2021. She has cleared the preliminary exam However, she was not permitted to appear in the main written exam on the ground that she does not possess the experience certificate and there was a break in practice. At the time of scrutiny of the application form,there was no such objection raised by the respondent.
It is her case that as she has appeared earlier in the examination held by the respondents since 2017 to 2020 and there were no such objections at any point of time and raising an objection by the respondent to the effect that she does not possess the experience certificate, is not only illegal but also goes against the mandate that the petitioner has breakin profession.
She has drawn attention of the High Court to the form submitted by her pointing out the fact that due to transfer of themembership, there was a short break in practice from November 2015 to February 2016. The aforesaid cannot be treated as a break in profession;therefore, the objection raised by the respondent is per se illegal.Therefore, the petition is being filed.
On a specific question put to the counsel for the petitioner that when the written examinations are scheduled, she submitted that the examinations are over, but as she is approaching the maximum age limit to appear in the examination and this is her last chance to appear inthe main examination, therefore, the respondent be directed to overcome the objection taken by them and a direction be issued to take her main written examination separately in the interest of justice.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra noted that the reason which has been assigned that there was a break in practice is transfer of membership from one District BarAssociation to another.
‘As there was a specific condition in the advertisement itself that a candidate should have continuous three years practice, therefore, break in practice specifically mentioned by the petitioner in the application formitself cannot be overlooked by the authorities and permit her to appear in the main written examination’, observed the Bench.
In such circumstances, the Court held that no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. Even otherwise, written examinations are already over and, therefore, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondent to organize the examination separately for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.