The judgement was delivered by a full bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, V M Kanade and A A Sayed while dismissing a bunch of petitions.
Petitioners Sunanda Chawre and others had argued that prosecutors in full-time employment of state should be eligible for Judge's posts under Article 233(2) of Constitution.
The petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors between February 2002 and March 2009. The Bombay High Court recently issued an advertisement by which applications were invited for 17 posts of District Judge.
The criteria were a law degree, seven years' experience as a lawyer in the High Court, or as a public prosecutor or a government lawyer.
But full-time Prosecutors, Assistant/Additional Public Prosecutors, Law Officers of the Centre or the State Government or of any Public Corporation were ineligible.
This was based on Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules.
Also Read
The Petitioners challenged the proviso which made full-time prosecutors/government lawyers ineligible, saying it had no connection with "object" of advertisement and claimed it was discrimination.
They argued that as per the Article 233, a person not already in government service will be eligible for District Judge's post if he/she has been "Advocate or Pleader".
The expression 'Advocate and Pleader' is wide enough to include full-time Prosecutor, they said. (More)