JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. These three writ applications, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising identical questions of law and facts, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners are judicial officers working in the State of Bihar. The claim of the petitioners is that in the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the words “eligible advocate”, for the purposes of direct recruitment on the post of District Judge Entry Level, should mean not only an advocate, but also person, who has held/holds judicial office. 2. The petitioners also pray for a direction to the effect that in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, the term 'not less than 7 years as an advocate or a pleader' should be read to mean that persons who have held/are holding judicial office, etc., after he/she became an advocate as well. 3. Such grievance of the petitioners arises out of the fact that Advertisement No.01/2015 was published inviting applications for direct recruitment in respect of 99 vacancies of the District judges, Entry Level, as on 31st March, 2015, from amongst the members of the Bar. 4. The petitioners rely on an interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502 of 2014, wherein the judicial officers, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, were permitted to appear in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service by the Supreme Court. It is on the basis of parity of the said order that the petitioners seek to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. It may be pointed out that the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502 of 2014 and other connected petitions have since been withdrawn, on 16.12.2014, with liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. 6. The claim of the petitioners is required to be examined keeping in view of the provisions of Article 233 of the Constitution of India. The said provisions read as under:- “233. Appointment of District Judges.- (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. The said provisions read as under:- “233. Appointment of District Judges.- (1) Appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. (2) 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 and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.” 7. The petitioners are in State Judicial Service and, therefore, in terms of sub-clause (2) of Article 233, they cannot compete for appointment to the post of District Judge. 8. The issue, as raised in the present writ petitions, is not res integra. Way back in 1985, in the case of Satya Narain Singh v. Allahabad High Court [ (1985) 1 SCC 225 ], the members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service sought to appear in the test for appointment to the post of District Judge. The Supreme Court found that the first clause of Article 233 of the Constitution deals with appointment, posting and promotion of the District Judges in any State, whereas the second clause is confined to its application to the persons not already in the service of the Union or of the State. It has been found that service of the Union or State means Judicial Service. The Supreme Court held to the following effect:- “5. Posing the question whether the expression “the service of the Union or of the State” meant any service of the Union or of the State or whether it meant the Judicial Service of the Union or of the State, the learned Chief Justice emphatically held that the expression “the service” in Article 233(2) could only mean the Judicial Service. But he did not mean by the above statement that persons who are already in the service, on the recommendation by the High Court can be appointed as District Judges, overlooking the claims of all other seniors in the Subordinate Judiciary contrary to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.” 9. But he did not mean by the above statement that persons who are already in the service, on the recommendation by the High Court can be appointed as District Judges, overlooking the claims of all other seniors in the Subordinate Judiciary contrary to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.” 9. The issue as to whether the expression “service” used in Article 233(2), is judicial service has been examined, again, in a recent judgment in the case of Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik [ (2013) 5 SCC 277 ] in the context of Government Law Officers as to whether such law officers are eligible to be appointed as District Judges. The Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments in AIR 1961 SC 816 (Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab), referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, and AIR 1966 SC 1987 (Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh). The Court held to the following effect:- “42.2. Clause (2) of Article 233 lays down three essentials for appointment of a person to the post of District Judge: (i) a person shall not be in service of the Union or of the State; (ii) he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader; and (iii) his name is recommended by the relevant High Court for appointment. In other words, as regards a person not already in service what is required is that he should be an advocate or pleader of seven years? standing and that his name is recommended by the High Court for appointment as District Judge. 43. We have to find out what is the meaning of the expression “the service” under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The expression “the service” occurring in clause (2) of Article 233 came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Mohan ( AIR 1966 SC 1987 ). 48. The Constitution Bench in Chandra Mohan has thus clearly held that the expression “the service” in Article 233(2) means the judicial service.” 51. From the above, we have no doubt that the expression, “the service” in Article 233(2) means the “judicial service”. Other members of the service of the Union or State are as it is excluded because Article 233 contemplates only two sources from which the District Judges can be appointed. From the above, we have no doubt that the expression, “the service” in Article 233(2) means the “judicial service”. Other members of the service of the Union or State are as it is excluded because Article 233 contemplates only two sources from which the District Judges can be appointed. These sources are (i) judicial service; and (ii) the advocate/pleader or in other words from the Bar. The District Judges can, thus, be appointed from no source other than judicial service or from amongst advocates. Article 233(2) excludes appointment of District Judges from the judicial service and restricts eligibility of appointment as District Judges from amongst the advocates or pleaders having practise of not less than seven years and who have been recommended by the High Court as such.” 10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the members of judicial service are not eligible for appointment as District Judges in terms of sub-clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution. 11. Situated thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the members of State Judicial Service are not eligible to seek appointment as District Judges. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the report of Shetty Commission to contend that it had recommended appointment of judicial officers to the post of District Judges. The relevant recommendation reads as under:- “11.67 We accordingly suggest that Clause (2) of Article 233 be substituted with the following clause: Article 233 (3) A person shall be eligible to be appointed directly as a District Judge if he has been for not less than seven years an Advocate or held judicial office in the territory of India and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.” 11.68 We propose to recommend age limit between 35 years and 45 years for advocates to apply for direct recruitment. The same age limit shall also be prescribed to service judges for seeking direct recruitment as District Judges. 11.69 We request the Central Government, all High Courts, State Governments, Administration of Union Territories to take immediate action for amending Clause (2) of Article 233 as indicated by us.” 13. A perusal of the above recommendation shows that the recommendation is to amend Clause (2) of Article 233. Till, therefore, such time the Constitution is amended, prohibition contained therein, as interpreted by the Supreme Court referred to above, would be applicable. A perusal of the above recommendation shows that the recommendation is to amend Clause (2) of Article 233. Till, therefore, such time the Constitution is amended, prohibition contained therein, as interpreted by the Supreme Court referred to above, would be applicable. Thus, a member of the judicial service would not be eligible for appointment as District Judge on the basis of recommendation of the Shetty Commission as well. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ applications. The writ applications are dismissed. I.A. Ansari, A.C.J. - I agree.