KUMAR PADMA PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Respondent no.9 was not qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) because he never held a judicial office as a part of the judicial service of the State as defined under Article 236(b). The office of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner was neither a judicial office nor part of a judicial service. Even after the creation of Mizoram Judicial Service in 1986, respondent no.9 did not fulfill the ten-year requirement, nor held any of the relevant judicial offices. Hence, his appointment was constitutionally invalid.
Source excerpt
- Appointment of high court judges
- Qualifications for judicial office
- Separation of judiciary from executive
- Judicial service definition