SHC dismisses plea challenging eligibility criteria for civil judges, judicial magistrates’ appointments

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday dismissed petitions that challenged amendments to the eligibility criteria for the posts of civil judges and judicial magistrates. The petitioners, Sana and others, had submitted that the administrative committee of the high court had resolved to seek amendments to the Rule 8 of the Sindh Judicial Services Rules and make a minimum period of two years of active practice as an eligibility requirement in order to apply for the posts of civil judge and judicial magistrate.

They said that the administrative decision with the proposed amendments to the Rule 8(1)(b) were conveyed to the law ministry and such amendments was approved by the cabinet and notified on November 12, 2024.

A counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned amendment was passed in violation of their fundamental rights under the Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution, and sought annulment of the amendment.

A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Agha Faisal inquired the counsel as to whether judicial dispensation would be better served with experienced individuals as opposed to those devoid of any experience.

The counsel did not articulate any cavil to the greater benefit of engaging experienced candidates, however, predicated their challenge on individual exclusions disentitling petitioners to participate in the present competitive recruitment process, which was initiated through an advertisement issued on March 20, 2025, for which the last date of submission of applications was April 21.

The SHC observed that the petitioners’s counsel had also referred to the Sindh Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act 2018 to suggest that the recruitment process was in dissonance. The high court observed that the averment was prima facie inconsistent with the record as the Note 7 in the advertisement specifically stated that the quota for disabled persons would be followed as per the law.

The SHC observed that an argument was also made that the age limit criterion lent unmerited antecedence to those graduating in law other than from Pakistan. The high court observed that the relevant judgment in such regard was the Pakistan Bar Council case and it explicated that any relevant grievance must be escalated before the apex court and recourse to any other judicial forum, without permission of the Supreme Court, was barred.

The bench observed that the decision to require a minimum period of two years of active practice as an eligibility requirement for the posts of civil judge and judicial magistrate was clearly an administrative / executive / policy decision of the administration committee of the SHC headed by its chief justice.

The SHC observed that the petitioners’ counsel were unable to satisfy the court on the count of maintainability and there was absolutely no endeavour to articulate as to how jurisdiction could be assumed by the court in view of the binding edict in Gul Taiz Khan Marwat case. The bench dismissed the petitions observing that they were adjudged to be misconceived and prima facie devoid of merit.