http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER: RAMESHWAR DAYAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/12/1960
BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GUPTA, K.C. DAS AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 816 1961 SCR (2) 874 CITATOR INFO : D 1966 SC1987 (17) D 1985 SC 308 (2,3)
ACT: District Judges--Eligibility for appointment--Appointment under the Constitution--Qualifications--Period of Practice as Advocate, if includes Period of practice in Lahore High Court---High Courts (Punjab) Order,1947, cl. 6--Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), s. 8--Constitution of India, Art. 233(2).
HEADNOTE: The validity of the appointment of respondents 2 to 6 as District judges was challenged in a petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab, on the ground, inter alia, that the appointment was made in contravention of Art. 233(2) of the Constitution of India which lays down that "a person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader..." The respondents had been enrolled as advocates of the Lahore High Court on various dates between 1933 and 1940, and while respondents 2, 4 and 5 had their names on the roll of ad...