A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that quashed an amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, for appointments to the post of district judge.

The amendment introduced in 2015 allowed the high court to fill the posts of district judge (entry point) by judges from the district court if appropriate candidates were not found from the Bar quota (advocate quota) in two consecutive exams.

The plea filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court through its registrar general seeks direction to stay the impugned order dated April 4, 2025.

According to the petition filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, the amendment was introduced to address the challenging situation of extremely low number of selections of district judges from the quota designated for practising lawyers having experience of more than seven years.

The petition stated that from 2011 to 2015, 304 vacancies were notified in multiple recruitment drives in Madhya Pradesh, but only 11 advocates were found suitable, thus only 11 vacancies of district judge (entry level) were filled through direct recruitment of suitable lawyers.

"The same tantamount to filling up of 3.61 per cent of the available posts earmarked to be filled by way of recruiting suitable lawyers.

"Consequently, a substantial number of vacancies for the post of district judge (entry level) were left unfilled despite being duly advertised, therefore, a sharp rise was observed in the workload of the serving officers of the higher judiciary cadre of Madhya Pradesh.

"The manifold increase in workload further adversely affected the disposal rate and ultimately turned out to be a major hindrance in the smooth dispensation of justice in the state of Madhya Pradesh," the plea said.

The petition also said that in light of the aforesaid situation, the then-chief justice made a detailed proposal having offered various modalities to overcome this issue of underwhelming number of recruitment in the post of district judge, especially by the direct recruitment method.

"The Proviso to Rule 5(1)(c) was introduced as a necessary institutional response to the chronic failure of the direct recruitment process for district judges through quota reserved for lawyers, which remained ineffective since 2006," the plea said.

The petition also contended that the high court, however, failed to appreciate the contextual and constitutional rationale behind the amendment.

The high court passed the order on petitions filed by some candidates challenging the amendment.

The plea said the amendment does not create a new method of recruitment but serves as a conditional adjustment within the existing framework.

"Its purpose is to ensure continuity in judicial operations by filling longstanding vacancies and addressing systemic inefficiencies, thereby aligning with the broader constitutional goal of ensuring timely justice delivery," the plea said.