The Supreme Court declined to grant a one-time relaxation of the mandatory practice requirement for in-service court employees seeking entry into judicial service. Petitioners, working as court staff, argued their court-side experience should substitute for formal advocacy practice. The Court rejected this, holding that the practice condition is a substantive eligibility criterion, not a procedural formality, and that judicial service recruitment rules cannot be relaxed even for experienced court employees through judicial intervention.

This ruling reinforces a foundational principle governing judicial service recruitment in India: eligibility conditions prescribed under service rules are substantive requirements, not mere formalities that courts can waive in the interest of equity or administrative convenience.

In India, recruitment to the subordinate judiciary (civil judge/judicial magistrate cadre) is regulated under High Court rules framed under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution. These rules typically require candidates to have practised as an advocate for a specified period — commonly two to three years — before they can sit for the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial) examination or equivalent.

The petitioners, being court staff (stenographers, clerks, readers, etc.), argued that their proximity to court proceedings effectively constituted practical legal training. The Supreme Court's refusal signals that the purpose of the practice requirement is not merely familiarity with court procedure but the development of independent legal reasoning, client representation, and adversarial advocacy skills — qualities not acquired through administrative court service.

Crucially, the Court signalled that such relaxations cannot be granted by judicial order; any modification must come through the rule-making authority itself — typically the High Court in consultation with the State Government under Article 234. This distinguishes between the Court's power to strike down rules and its power to modify or relax them, the latter being a legislative/regulatory function.

For CLAT PG aspirants, this connects to Articles 233 and 234 (appointment of district judges and subordinate judiciary), the limits of judicial review over service rules, and the principle that constitutional eligibility conditions cannot be judicially diluted.