Satish Maulyawan Patole vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principle Secretary And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010554722026

: 1 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[1] WRIT PETITION NO.15159 OF 2026
Satish Maulyawan Patole ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra
and others ….Respondents
…..
WITH
[2] WRIT PETITION NO.15160 OF 2026
Jinesh Jitendra Koli ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra
and others ….Respondents
__________
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate a/w. Anirudh Rote, Jinesh J. Koli for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.15160/2026
Mr. Satish Maulyawan Patole, the Petitioner in-person in Writ Petition
No.15159/2026.
Ms. Neha Bhide, Government Pleader a/w. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P. a/w
Ms.R.A.Salunke, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State & MPSC in
WP/15160/2026.
Ms. Neha Bhide, Government Pleader a/w. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P. a/w
T.N. Bhatia AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State & MPSC in
WP/15159/2026.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Rahul Nerlekar, Shailendra Kanetkar
for the Respondent No.3 in both the Petitions.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 05 NOVEMBER, 2026
1 of 23
Deshmane(PS)
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 2 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
JUDGMENT : [Per Sarang V. Kotwal, J. ]
1.
Both these Petitions are decided by this common order
because the relief sought in both these Petitions and the legal issues
raised in both these Petitions are similar. Considering the urgency,
we have heard both the parties at length. Hence, Rule. Rule is
made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.
2.
The Petitioner Satish Patole in Writ Petition
No.15159/2026 has obtained a Degree in Law in June, 2026 and is
enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and
Goa on 20.6.2026. The Petitioner Jinesh Jitendra Koli in Writ
Petition No.15160/2026 has obtained a Degree in Law in 2026
from the University of Mumbai and is enrolled as an Advocate with
the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 20.6.2026.
3.
The Petitioners are praying for directions to the
Respondents to permit them to apply for the “Civil Judge
Junior Division & Judicial Magistrate First Class Preliminary
Examination-2024” as according to them they are eligible to apply
and appear for the said examination which is to be held pursuant
to the Advertisement No.013/2026. The Petitioner Jinesh Koli in
Writ Petition No.15160/2026 has made a prayer for quashing and
2 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 3 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
setting aside paragraph No.1 and the consequential parts of the
corrigendum dated 23.10.2026 made to the said advertisement.
4.
According to both the Petitioners, they are eligible to
apply for the said recruitment process pursuant to the directions
given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhumika Trust
1
Vs. Union of India and others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bhumika
Trust case’)
5.
Heard Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.15160/2026, Mr. Satish Patole, the
Petitioner in-person in Writ Petition No.15159/2026, Ms. Neha
Bhide, Government Pleader along with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl.
G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State & MPSC and Dr. Milind
Sathe, the learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.Rahul Nerlekar,
for the Respondent No.3 in both the Petitions.
6.
The said corrigendum dated 23.10.2026 refers to the
advertisement dated 30.4.2026 for conducting the Preliminary
Examination for the post of Civil Judge Junior Division & Judicial
Magistrate First Class. There is a reference to the order dated
21.8.2026 passed in the aforementioned Bhumika Trust case. It is
1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1687
3 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 4 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
mentioned in the corrigendum that as per the said order, all Law
Graduates who have obtained the Degree in Law prior to one year
from the date of the judgment dated 21.8.2026 in Bhumika Trust
case shall be deemed to have completed one year of active practice;
and the corrigendum further mentions that those fresh graduates in
the branch of Law who have obtained their degree before
22.8.2025 were invited to submit their forms if they were eligible
according to the terms mentioned in the advertisement dated
30.4.2026 and the corrigendum dated 23.10.2026. The
applications were to be made between 26.10.2026 to 9.11.2026.
The corrigendum further provides the minimum and maximum age
limit to make the applications (however the age criteria is not the
subject matter of these Petitions.)
7.
In paragraph No.3 of the said corrigendum it is
mentioned that the Law Graduates mentioned in the first
paragraph of the corrigendum and the other eligible candidates
who have not completed three years of actual Law practice would
be deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
8.
The corrigendum is based on the directions and
conclusion mentioned in Part VII of the said judgment of the
4 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 5 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhumika Trust case. The arguments
were extensively made in respect of those directions and, therefore,
it would be advantageous to reproduce those directions mentioned
in Paragraph Nos.73, 74 and 75 of the said judgment, which are as
under :
“73. In light of the above discussion, we consider it appropriate
to issue the following directions, which would apply to all
recruitment notification/advertisement(s) issued to the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the transitional period,
i.e., notification/advertisement(s) issued after the Judgment
under Review up to 31.03.2027:
(i) All law graduates shall be eligible to apply,
notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement.
Having regard to the fact that more than one year has
elapsed since the Judgment under Review was
pronounced, such candidates shall, for the purposes
of their applications, be deemed to have completed
one year of active practice. They shall not be
required to furnish a separate Certificate of Practice
in support of the said deemed period;
(ii) Candidates selected pursuant to the aforesaid
recruitment shall, upon appointment, be designated
as “Trainee Judicial Officers” and shall undergo a
compulsory period of one year of intensive training
at the concerned State Judicial Academy. This period
shall be treated as equivalent to one year of practice
at the Bar for the purposes of the three-year
5 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 6 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
requirement;
(iii) During the period of such training, the Trainee
Judicial Officers shall be paid a fixed emolument
equivalent to one-half of the remuneration payable to
a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the concerned
State. They shall, in addition, be entitled to the
facilities and other benefits ordinarily made available
to trainees at the concerned State Judicial Academy;
(iv) Upon successful completion of the aforesaid training,
the Trainee Judicial Officers shall undergo a further
period of one year of structured Law Clerkship. The
first six months shall be spent as a Law Clerk under
the supervision of the Principal District/District and
Sessions Judges or Members of the Higher Judicial
Services, and the remaining six months under the
supervision of a sitting Judge of the concerned High
Court;
(v) The aforesaid one-year period of Law Clerkship shall
also be treated as equivalent to one year of practice
at the Bar for the purposes of satisfying the three-
year requirement;
(vi) During the period of Law Clerkship, the Trainee
Judicial Officer shall be paid same emoluments as
admissible during their training in State Judicial
Academies, with no further allowance, etc.; and
(vii) Upon completion of the Law Clerkship, the sitting
Judge of the High Court under whose supervision the
Trainee Judicial Officer has served shall submit a
reasoned evaluation report concerning the
performance and suitability of the trainee. Upon such
6 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 7 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
evaluation being found satisfactory, the Trainee
Judicial Officer shall be appointed to the regular post
in the field and shall thereafter be entitled to the
regular pay scale and other service benefits attached
to the post.
74. We further direct that for the period following the transition
period, i.e., notification/advertisement(s) issued on or after
01.04.2027, the following directions shall govern the
recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division):
(i) Every candidate seeking to appear for the examination
for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall
possess at least one year of actual practice from the
source and certification as laid down in direction (vii)
and (viii) of the Judgment under Review for now and
thereafter as laid down hereinafter. Such practice shall
be subject to verification through issuance of a
Certificate of Practice, which shall not be issued
unless the candidate's presence and participation in
effective judicial proceedings, whether along with a
senior member of the Bar with at least 10 years
practice or otherwise, have been duly recorded in
accordance with the mechanism to be prescribed by
the High Courts;
(ii) The application of a candidate for recruitment to the
judicial service from the aforesaid recruitment cycle
shall be entertained only upon submission of the
requisite certificate evidencing completion of one year
of actual practice in the District Courts; and
(iii) Candidates selected pursuant to such recruitment shall,
notwithstanding their one year of prior practice,
7 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 8 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
undergo the same one-year period of intensive
training at the State Judicial Academy followed by 6
months of Law Clerkship under the Principal
District/District and Sessions Judges or Members of
the Higher Judicial Services and thereafter another 6
months of Law Clerkship under a sitting Judge of the
concerned High Court, in terms of directions (ii) to
(vii) of Paragraph 73.
75. For abundant caution, we reiterate that all
notification/advertisement(s) issued already after the
Judgment under Review was pronounced, as well as all
notification/advertisement(s) to be issued hereafter, for
recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
shall conform to and will be governed by the aforesaid
directions.”
9.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, the learned Counsel as well as Mr.
Satish Patole, the Petitioner appearing in person made submissions.
The main submissions were advanced by Dr. Warunjikar, which
were adopted by the Petitioner appearing in person. The
submissions are as follows:
i. Dr. Warunjikar submitted that in paragraph No.73 of the said
judgment, referred to hereinabove, the directions issued by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court apply to all Law Graduates;
whereas paragraph No.74 applies to all candidates.
8 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 9 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
Paragraph No.74 refers to the candidates who, in future,
would participate in the selection process based on the
advertisement issued on or after 1.4.2027.
ii. The Respondent Maharashtra Public Service Commission
[MPSC] has not correctly interpreted Paragraph No.73 of the
said judgment. The term ‘Law Graduates’ is different from
those who have enrolled themselves with the Bar Council
after obtaining Degree in Law. Since Paragraph No.73
specifically refers to the Law Graduates, permission to apply
is given to all Law Graduates including the fresh Graduates
who have obtained their degree even after 22.8.2025. The
interpretation by MPSC of the said direction is not correct;
and hence, the corrigendum erroneously creates an artificial
separate class for Law Graduates who have obtained their
Degree before 22.8.2025 and after that date.
iii. Dr. Warunjikar submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had exercised their powers under Article 142 and issued
those directions, which were binding on the MPSC, and that
the MPSC had no power to interpret the directions given by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court differently.
9 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 10 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
iv. Dr. Warunjikar submitted that the High Court of Manipur has
already taken a view that all the fresh Law Graduates would
be permitted to participate in the selection process.
10.
Dr. Milind Sathe, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the High Court administration opposed these submissions. His
arguments were adopted by the learned counsel appearing for the
MPSC.
11.
Dr. Sathe invited our attention to the observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges
2
Association and others Vs. Union of India and others . He submitted
that the said judgment was under review in Bhumika Trust case.
12.
Dr. Sathe invited our attention to various paragraphs in
both these judgments. He submitted that the basic principles and
guidelines issued in the All India Judges Association’s case were not
set aside or reversed in the Bhumika Trust case. He relied on
various paragraphs from both these judgments. He contended that
the corrigendum is properly issued as per the directions issued in
Bhumika Trust case.
2 2025(11) SCC 233
10 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 11 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
REASONS AND CONCLUSION :
13.
We have considered these submissions. Before referring
to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhumika
Trust case, a brief reference can be made to the earlier decision
which led to passing of the Judgment in Bhumika Trust case. The
question, whether the Advocates entering Judicial Service through
appointment as C.J.J.D. & J.M.F.C. need to have some experience
or not was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different
cases. In the Judgment dated 24.08.1993 passed in All India Judges
3
Association and others Vs. Union of India and others (hereinafter
nd
referred to as ‘2 AIJA case as it is referred as such in the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.) Vide that Judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that all the States shall take
immediate steps to prescribe three year’s practice as a lawyer as
one of the essential qualifications for requirement as a Judicial
Officer.
14.
This issue was again considered subsequently by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association (3)
4 rd
Versus Union of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘3 AIJA case’). The
requirement of having minimum three year’s practice for appearing
3 (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 288
4 (2002) 4 SCC 247
11 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 12 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
in the examination of C.J.J.D. was done away by the Hon’ble
rd
Supreme Court in 3 AIJA case. The issue again was considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the the cases of All India Judges
Association and others Versus Union of India and others, as
referred to herein above. The said case was decided vide the
Judgment and order dated 20.05.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court considered the recommendations of various High Courts and
in paragraph Nos.85 and 86 observed thus:-
“85. The Judges from the very day on which they assume
office have to deal with the questions of life, liberty,
property and reputation of litigants. As rightly observed,
neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service
training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand
experience of the working of the court system and the
administration of justice. This is possible only when a
candidate is exposed to the atmosphere in the court by
assisting the seniors and observing how the lawyers and the
Judges function in the court. The candidate should be
equipped to understand the intricacies of the functions of a
Judge. The experience of various High Courts has also
shown that such fresh law graduates, upon their entry in
judicial service, begin to show behavioural and temperament
problems.
86. We are therefore in agreement with the views expressed
by most of the High Courts that the requirement of
12 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 13 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
reintroduction of a certain number of years of practice would
be necessary.”
15.
In paragraph Nos.91.7 and 91.8 the following
directions were issued:-
“91.7. All the High Courts and the State Governments in the
country shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect
that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have
practised for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for
the said examination. To fulfil the said requirement, the
Rules shall mandate that the candidate produces a certificate
to that effect duly certified either by the Principal Judicial
Officer of that court or by an advocate of that court having a
minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the
Principal Judicial Officer of such a district or a Principal
Judicial Officer at such a station. Insofar as the candidates
who are practising before the High Courts or this Court,
they shall be certified by an advocate who has a minimum
standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an officer designated
by that High Court or this Court. We further direct that the
experience of the candidates which they have gained while
working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or Judicial
Officers in the country should also be considered while
calculating their total number of years of practice. The
Rules shall also mandate that the candidates who are
appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
pursuant to their selection through the examination must
compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before
13 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 14 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
presiding in a court;
91.8. It is directed that the number of years of practice
completed by a candidate desirous of appearing in the
examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be
calculated from the date of their provisional
enrolment/registration with the State Bar Council
concerned;”
16.
Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted
permission to file review petition in respect of the said Judgment
and order dated 20.05.2025. The directions given in the said
Judgment of Bhumika Trust case formed basis of the corrigendum
and the submissions were advanced before us in respect of the said
corrigendum with reference to the directions given in Bhumika
Trust case.
17.
While analysing the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bhumika Trust case, very clearly observed in paragraph No.43
that, at the outset, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not persuaded
that the Judgment under Review required to be reconsidered on
the fundamental question whether some prior exposure to the
working of courts is desirable for a person seeking entry into the
judicial service. The reasons postulated by the Hon’ble Supreme
14 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 15 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
Court in restoring the requirement retained considerable force.
Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court very categorically
observed that the requirement of prior exposure to the working of
Courts was necessary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further
elaborated in paragraph No.44 that, more precise question was
whether such exposure necessarily required three years of
conventional practice at the Bar and the manner in which the
requirement is to be implemented as a condition precedent to even
appearing for the examination. In paragraph No.45 it was further
observed that the Judgment under review was justified in
emphasising the peculiar nature of the responsibilities which were
attached to a Judicial Officer from the very first day of service. A
Civil Judge is required to deal with the questions affecting life,
liberty, property and personal rights of litigants. It was for this
reason, the Judgment under Review considered exposure to the
atmosphere of the court, including by assisting seniors and
observing the manner in which lawyers and Judges function, to be
of considerable value.
18.
In paragraph No.46 it was observed that minimum
period of practicle exposure before assuming judicial office was,
15 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 16 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
therefore, neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with the object of
securing a competent and independent subordinate judiciary.
19.
In paragraph No.47 it was further observed that, there
was considerable merit in the proposition that a person who was to
assume judicial office ought not to be wholly unfamiliar with the
functioning of courts and the practical consequences of judicial
orders. Such exposure may contribute to the development of
judicial temperament, patience, empathy, courtroom discipline and
an appreciation of the respective roles of the Bench and the Bar.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that, they saw no
reason to displace that finding.
20.
The Judgment then considered as to what should be
the minimum period required as practice in the courts before they
were eligible for appearing in the examination.
21.
In Paragraph No.60, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that, the discussion in their Judgment should not be
understood as questioning the wisdom of prescribing three years of
practice. Rather, it was an exercise in ensuring that the rule was
implemented in a manner which was fair to those affected by its
sudden restoration.
16 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 17 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
22.
In paragraph No.63, again it was observed that, they
were not holding that three years requirement was inherently
unreasonable. In paragraph Nos.65 and 66, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court took into account the fact that more than a year had elapsed
since the Judgment under Review restored the three year
requirement and, therefore, it was safe to presume that, during the
preceding one year, most law graduates would have either engaged
in practice at the Bar, served as Law Clerks to Hon’ble Judges, or
gained experience in law firms. As a one time measure, such
experience may reasonably be treated at par with one year of
practice at the Bar.
23.
This observation is important in the context of the
arguments advanced before us in the present petition, because the
Petitioners submitted that the directions given in paragraph
No.73(i) refers to all law graduates and it was not necessary to
impose the condition of one year of practice.
24.
In this context, in continuation, paragraph Nos.66, 67,
68, 69, 70 and 71 are important which are as under:-
“66. We may safely presume that, during the preceding one
year, most law graduates would have either engaged in
17 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 18 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
practice at the Bar, served as Law Clerks to Hon'ble Judges,
or gained experience in law firms. As a one-time measure,
such experience may reasonably be treated at par with one
year of practice at the Bar.
67. The second consideration demands us to recognise that
the requirement of experience and the requirement of
training are not mutually exclusive and, if anything, they can
be complementary. While the initial practice at the Bar
exposes a candidate to the adversarial process, judicial
training prepares the candidate for the fundamentally
different responsibility of adjudication. It is therefore
appropriate that candidates who are permitted to enter the
selection process during the transitional period should not be
placed in the field immediately upon selection. Their
appointment must initially be to the status of trainee judicial
officers, and their independent judicial functions should
follow only after they have undergone an appropriate period
of institutional training.
68. A period of one year of structured training at the State
Judicial Academy would, in our view, serve this purpose. It
would provide a common foundation to candidates
irrespective of their experiences at the Bar. More
importantly, it would permit the State Judicial Academies to
assess the candidate not just on legal knowledge, but also on
the practical skills required of a Judge.
69. We also consider it appropriate to note that this period of
institutional training would serve as equivalent, for the
purposes of the three-year requirement, to a period of one-
year practice at the Bar. This does not proceed upon the
18 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 19 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
assumption that training and practice are identical. It reflects
the more limited proposition that, once a candidate has been
selected through a competitive judicial examination, planned
and guided training specifically designed to prepare him or
her for judicial office provides relevant practical exposure.
70. The training period at State Judicial Academies must
thereafter be followed by a further period of supervised
practical engagement with the judicial process through Law
Clerkship. A Law Clerkship under the direct supervision of
Judges can expose a candidate to the manner in which court
proceedings are to be held and decorum and attitude to be
maintained towards members of the Bar and litigants.
Simultaneously it will assist in preparation and analysis of
cases, the evaluation of submissions, the application of
procedural law and the discipline involved in preparing
judicial orders.
71. We accordingly consider it appropriate that, following
successful completion of the year-long institutional training,
the trainee judicial officers should undergo a further year of
structured Law Clerkship: first under the supervision of a
Principal District/District and Sessions Judge or a Member
of the Higher Judicial Services and thereafter under a sitting
Judge of the concerned High Court. This period shall also be
treated as equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the
purpose of satisfying the eligibility requirement. The
arrangement has the further advantage of enabling senior
judicial officers to observe the performance of the trainee
over a sustained period before the trainee is entrusted with
independent judicial work.
19 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 20 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
25.
Thus, from the above observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that, in Bhumika Trust case the Hon’ble
Supreme Court did not disturb the requirement of three years of
experience. However, said three years of experience at the Bar was
separated as follows:
In the first year, the law graduates would have to gain
experience either by engaging in practice at Bar, serving as Law
Clerks to Hon’ble Judges or gain experience in law firms. Such
experience is to be treated at par with one year of practice at Bar.
In addition to this one year, one more year spent at the
judicial academy in structured training programme would serve
that purpose. It is specifically held in paragraph No.69 that this
period of institutional training would serve as equivalent for the
purposes of the three year requirement to one year practice at Bar.
26.
The third segment as directed would be one year period
as a Law Clerkship under the direct supervision of Judges. In
paragraph No.71, it is mentioned that, after a year long
institutional training, the trainee judicial officers should undergo a
further year of structured Law Clerkship; first under the supervision
20 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 21 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
of a Principal District/District and Sessions Judge or a Member of
the Higher Judicial Services and thereafter under a sitting Judge of
the concerned High Court. That period shall also be treated as
equivalent to one year of practice at the Bar for the purpose of
satisfying the eligibility requirement.
27.
Thus, all these three segments satisfy the requirement
of three years experience as laid down in the Judgment under
Review.
28.
After this analysis, the final Directions and Conclusion
was issued. The final conclusion and directions were noted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.73 which we have already
reproduced.
29.
Therefore, the directions in paragraph-73(i) takes care
of the fact that one year had elapsed since the judgment under
Review was pronounced. Thus, those Law Graduates are deemed to
have acquired one year of active practice. Direction 73(i) does not
stop at mentioning all Law Graduates to become eligible. The
direction has to be read as a whole. In the same direction 73(i) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that one year has elapsed
since the judgment under review was pronounced. In that context,
21 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 22 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
it was observed that ‘such candidates’ (emphasis supplied) be
deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
This satisfies first requirement of one year of practice at Bar.
30.
Paragraph No.74 of Bhumika Trust case is a complete
answer to the arguments advanced by the Petitioners. There it is
specifically mentioned that, every candidate seeking to appear for
examination for appointment as C.J.J.D. shall possess at least one
year of actual practice from the source and certification as laid
down in directions 7 and 8 of the Judgment under Review. We
unable to accept that there could be distinction in the words ‘Law
Graduates’ and ‘candidates’. One year requirement of actual
practice is held to be necessary in the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bhumika Trust case.
31.
The corrigendum issued under the notification, which is
under challenge, therefore, requires no interference. We are
satisfied that the corrigendum is issued in compliance with the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the said
Judgment. In fact, any other contrary direction would be violative
of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
32.
As a result, we do not find any merit in these petitions.
22 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09

: 23 : wp-15159-15160-26 - F.odt
33.
Both the petitions are dismissed and the Rule is
discharged.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (SrPS) & Gokhale (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date: 2026.11.05
12:19:51 +0530
23 of 23
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:26:09
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)