The Karnataka High Court has temporarily halted a previous ruling that allowed court personnel to take part in the recruitment process for civil judges, despite the introduction of a new regulation requiring three years of continuous legal practice as a crucial requirement for the position.
On May 7, a vacation bench comprising Justices Sachin Shankar Magadum and Rajesh Rai K issued an interim order in response to an appeal from the high court’s registrar-general.
The bench stated, “There will be a temporary stay on the operation and implementation of the order dated April 29, 2026, issued by the learned Single Judge, specifically regarding the permission granted to the writ petitioners to submit their applications and participate in the preliminary examination, main examination, and viva voce for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment.”
Petitioner Yogesha B, along with 15 others, challenged the legality of the Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2025, which were announced on March 12, 2026.
This amendment alters Rule 4 of the Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment Rules 2004, aligning with the Supreme Court’s directives in the case of All India Judges Association versus Union of India 2025.
Senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing the high court alongside Advocate Krutika Raghavan, argued that the revised rules require a minimum of three years’ continuous practice at the Bar as a fundamental eligibility criterion for direct recruitment to the civil judge position.
The amendment intentionally excludes current judicial staff and court personnel from eligibility, while allowing a specific exception for law clerks and research assistants.
The counsel further contended that since the statutory rules have been amended in accordance with the Supreme Court’s instructions, and given that the eligibility criteria specify a minimum period of continuous Bar practice, the single-judge bench was incorrect in allowing ineligible candidates to engage in the selection process through an interim measure.
The court remarked, “At first glance, this court perceives that the amendment to Rule 4 appears to be a deliberate legislative response to the mandate from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of prior Bar experience for entry into the judicial service through direct recruitment.”
The order indicated that the revised framework does not provide any exceptions for current high court or district judiciary staff. “As such, allowing the continuation of the interim order that permits the participation of candidates who do not meet the amended eligibility criteria would significantly impact the ongoing recruitment process governed by the updated Rules,” the court noted.
Regarding the amendment’s validity, the court acknowledged that the “balance of convenience also favors” adhering strictly to the amended rules for the recruitment process while the broader issue of the amendment’s legality is under consideration.
The petitioners filed an application on May 12, requesting to overturn the division bench’s interim order, arguing that if the application deadline expires and the court later rules in their favor, it would result in considerable disadvantage to them.
The high court’s counsel informed the court that a review petition on the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
While denying the petitioners’ request, the bench stated, “The respondents are permitted to approach the Apex Court for clarification on the issues at hand and the amendment that was enacted following the Supreme Court’s directives. Until such clarification is obtained from the Apex Court, it is inappropriate for this Court to vacate or alter the order dated May 7, 2026.”
