Read 15 comments as:
Filter By
Your coaching won't go to waste, there will still be an exam at the end of 3 years
Three years practice is a weird requirement. Not enough to actually gain any useful experience, specially of you practice in High Courts.
Three years is minimum. Nothing prevents you from doing more. After 7 years you will become eligible for the next rung of lower judiciary (DSJ level).
If someone wants/ has to do 3 or 7 (as nothing prevents him/her) years of practice, then what is the point of him choosing judiciary and taking a coaching just to make sure that he/she gets settled as soon as it is possible (as a judicial officer). Answer what is asked.
Three years of practice in a trial court gives enough experience for you to be familiar with how the system works. It will save a lot of time in training and also reduce the problems caused by inexperienced freshers when they become magistrates
If this filters out people who are just taking it for a job security/career progression, it is a good move.
This requirement only makes sense if the three years are mandatorily spent in trial courts. HC or SC practice does not teach anything about a trial in the district courts.
Agreed. HCs should mandate three years of trial court practise only.
What they are doing is only going to reduce competition only which enhance favouritism and nepotism in law field only.

▮▮▮ our judiciary system.

▮▮▮ Supreme court