JUDGMENT : (S.K. Mishra, J.) 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, a discharged employee of the Armed Forces, at present having an advocate’s license and allegedly practicing in this Court, has prayed for declaring the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, as ultra vires to Article 233(2) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India for not allowing the (so called) “Pleaders” to exercise their rights to apply for the recruitment and appointment to the post of Additional District Judge. He has also prayed to declare the Court’s permission to the petitioner, to act as a “Defence-Pleader” in Ramgarh Sessions Trial No. 132 of 2007 under Sections 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from 09.09.2014 to 17.04.2022, a total period of 07 years, 07 months and few days to be considered and counted as a practice of a “Pleader” for the purpose of being eligible to fulfill the requisite criteria of having specific experience or practice as a “Pleader” for the recruitment and appointment to the District Judiciary. The petitioner after his discharge from the Defence Services enrolled himself as an advocate having enrollment No.JH447/2022 dated 18.04.2022. He has obtained a degree in law from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag prior to that. Thereafter, he also qualified in the All India Bar Examination-XVII and received a certificate of practice from the Bar Council of India. He, therefore, claims that he has more than 7 years experience as a pleader and has become eligible under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India to apply for the post of selection and appointment as a District Judge. So, the grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the Rules of 2001 formulated under Article 233 read with 309 of the Constitution of India allows only the advocates to apply for the aforesaid post and disallows the pleaders to apply for the aforesaid post. Hence, he has filed this writ application. 2. Article 233 of the Constitution provides for appointment of District Judges, which reads as follows: “233(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. Article 233 of the Constitution provides for appointment of District Judges, which reads as follows: “233(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 of appointment.” 3. The provisions to which the petitioner assails are the eligibility criteria as provided under Rule 9 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Rules, which reads as follows:- “CHAPTER II SELECTION OF DIRECT RECRUITS 9. Eligibility: A Candidate shall be eligible to be appointed as an Additional District Judge under these Rules, if: (a) he is above the age of 35 years and below the age of 45 years as on the last day of January preceding the year in which the examination is held; provided that in the case of a candidate belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, there may be a relaxation of upper age limit by three years; (b) is a graduate in law from a University recognized for the purpose of enrollment as an Advocate under the Advocates’ Act, 1961. (c) has an experience of more than seven years at the Bar as a practicing Advocate after having been duly enrolled as such under the Advocates: Act, 1961. (d) possesses good health, is of sound moral character and is not involved in, or related to any criminal case of any type involving moral turpitude.” 4. The petitioner claims that he is a law graduate which he obtained in the year 2022, but prior to that, in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribag, the learned Judge while trying S.T. No. 132 of 2007 disposed on an application dated 26.08.2014 which was moved on behalf of the accused person Satyadeo Ram Dangi in the aforesaid case praying therein to appear in person before the court with assistance of his family friend and parivikar Dilip Kumar (the present petitioner) and to get his case orally argued by him. The learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration the financial and economic constraints of the accused persons and their allegation of being not satisfied with the preference of the lawyer defending their case as nominated by the District Legal Services Authority and also relied upon the case of Harishankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma & Anr., AIR 1978 SC 1019 , has allowed the petitioner to defend his mother-Bindu Devi as well as Satyadeo Ram Dangi, who happens to be the brother of the accused Satyadev Ram Dangi, but he was restrained not to appear and take this privilege in any other case other than the said case as a pairvikar or legal practitioner. On the basis of this order, the petitioner would submit that he has completed 7 years of practice as a pleader and thereafter, he has obtained a license after completing his law degree and, therefore, he is entitled as a pleader under Article 233 of the Constitution of India to appear in the District Judge Examination conducted by the High Court. 5. The petitioner himself argued the case and submitted that the provisions of restricting only the advocates to be eligible for appearing in the examination for recruitment of District Judges directly from the Bar is ultra vires the Constitution. 6. Having heard the petitioner, in person, and the learned counsel for respondents, this Court is of the opinion that firstly, the division of different kinds of legal professional came to an end on passing of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Advocates Act only recognizes only one type of legal practitioner who can represent the Court of law, they are advocates. However, there is also a concept of a designated Senior Advocate. The practice of issuing pleader’s license to law graduates has been done away with the passing of this Act. In fact, in the case of Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401 a similar question decided by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the question arose whether the 25% of vacancy reserved for recruitment of District Judges, also known as Higher Judiciary Services, directly from Bar can be considered for recruiting a Judicial Officer or a Civil Judge having 7 years of Experience as a lawyer and other qualifications like 35 years etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this 25% of advocate’s recruitment quota is reserved only for advocates and those advocates, who have not only 7 years of practice in any court of law, but the applicants should be a lawyer as on the date of notification or application, as per the Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that for direct recruitment as District Judge as against the quota fixed for the advocates/pleaders, incumbent has to be practicing advocate and must be in practice as on the cutoff date and at the time of appointment he must not be in judicial service or other services of the Union or State. For constituting experience of 7 years of practice as advocate, experience obtained in judicial service cannot be equated/combined and advocate/pleader should be in practice in the immediate past for 7 years and must be in practice while applying on the cut-off date fixed under the rules and should be in practice as an advocate on the date of appointment. The purpose is recruitment from bar of a practicing advocate having minimum 7 years’ experience. 47. We answer the reference as under : 47.3 Under Article 232(2), an Advocate or a pleader with 7 years of practice can be appointed as District Judge by way of direct recruitment in case he is not already in the judicial service of the Union or a State. 47.4 For the purpose of Article 233(2), an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge. Members of judicial service having 7 years’ experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of 7 years as lawyer and member of judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge.” 7. It is correct that the word “Pleader” is also mentioned in Article 233 of the Constitution of India, but at present there is no concept of ‘Pleader’ having license to plead for a person as a professional in the scheme of the Advocates Act or the Bar Council Rules. It is correct that the word “Pleader” is also mentioned in Article 233 of the Constitution of India, but at present there is no concept of ‘Pleader’ having license to plead for a person as a professional in the scheme of the Advocates Act or the Bar Council Rules. So, it is not proper on the part of the petitioner to state that because he has appeared for 1 or for 2 accused for an offence of under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and defended them after getting permission of the Court, he has acquired the experience to call himself as a legal professional having more than 7 years of experience in practice of law. The petitioner’s claim appears on the face of records to be preposterous. The very purpose of qualifying 7 year’s practice either as an advocate or as a pleader is to ensure that a person, who is considered for the purpose of recruitment as a District Judge, is to ensure that a person, who discharges the functions of a District & Sessions Judge having vast powers both in civil and criminal side, need to have sufficient experience as a lawyer or as an advocate. A person, who is not acquainted with the procedure of the court in the true sense, i.e., by appearing for his clients in different courts, both in civil and criminal side, may not be in a position to properly judge a case. Experiences have shown that inadequately experienced persons become poor adjudicators. The petitioner cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held to have 7 years of practice as a law professional, whatever name called. He only assisted some of his relations in a court as a pairvikar. A pairvikar is not a Pleader. Qualification of persons, who could be admitted as Advocates, has been laid down in the Advocates Act, 1961 which reads as follows:- “24. He only assisted some of his relations in a court as a pairvikar. A pairvikar is not a Pleader. Qualification of persons, who could be admitted as Advocates, has been laid down in the Advocates Act, 1961 which reads as follows:- “24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions, namely:— (a) he is a citizen of India: Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country; (b) he has completed the age of twenty-one years; (c) he has obtained a degree in law— (i) before the [12th day of March, 1967], from any University in the territory of India; or (ii) before the 15th August, 1947, from any University in any area which was comprised before that date within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935; or (iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause (iii-a), after undergoing a three year course of study in law from any University in India which is recognized for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or (iii-a) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is recognized for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or] (iv) in any other case, from any University outside the territory of India, if the degree is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India or; he is barrister and is called to the Bar on or before the 31st day of December, 1976; or has passed the article clerks examination or any other examination specified by the High Court at Bombay or Calcutta for enrolment as an attorney of that High Court; or has obtained such other foreign qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act; (d) omitted] (e) he fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council under this Chapter; (f) he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), and an enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of [six hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in favour of that Council: Provided that where such person is a member of the Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes and produces a certificate to that effect from such authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the State Bar Council shall be one hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, twenty-five rupees. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have obtained a degree in law from a University in India on that date on which the results of the examination for that degree are published by the University on its notice board or otherwise declaring him to have passed that examination. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a vakil or a pleader who is a law graduate may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he— (a) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with the provisions of this Act, not later than two years from the appointed day; and (b) fulfils the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f) of sub-section (1).” 8. However, as stated earlier, the concept of pleader has been done away with in the new Act. In a recent judgment arising out of an amendment of the Delhi High Court Higher Judicial Services Rules, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, as His Lordship was then, has occasion to consider the challenge made to the fixation of age limit, i.e. 35 years, as the minimum age for appearing in the District Examination for Recruitment of District Judges, in the case of High Court of Delhi Vs. Devina Sharma, (2022) 4 SCC 643 has held as follows:- “25.The submission of the appellants, to the effect that the prescription of a minimum age would be contrary to the constitutional provision contained in Article 233 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Article 233(2) of the Constitution stipulates that a person not already in the service of the Union or of a State shall only be eligible to be appointed a District Judge if he has been, for not less than 7 years, an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment. Clause (1) of Article 233 stipulates that appointments of persons, posting and promotion of District Judges shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the State. Article 235 entrusts to the High Court control over the district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service to the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge. Article 235 entrusts to the High Court control over the district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of and the grant of leave to persons belonging to the judicial service to the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge. The Constitution has prescribed the requirement to the effect that a person shall be eligible for appointment as a District Judge only if he has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. What this means is that a person who has not fulfilled the seven year norm is not eligible. The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment.” 9. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualifications. Hence, this is a speculative litigation and it should be dismissed with costs. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs. 11. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. 12. Urgent Certified copies as per rules.