Kathmandu, August 20

Advocate Toyanath Dhungana today filed a writ of certiorari and mandamus at the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of 60 district court judges.

The writ petitioner has asked the court to stop the posting of new judges, who are currently undergoing training.

The petitioner has made all the newly appointed district court judges, Judicial Council, Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, CA Secretariat and Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly and Parliamentary Affairs the defendants.

The petitioner said that the appointment of 60 district court judges violated Supreme Court’s order issued on June 18, 2014 wherein the apex court had told the government to introduce a bill to appoint district court judges on the basis of open competition as stated in the constitution.

The petitioner also argued that the apex court had also issued a directive then in the name of the Judicial Council stating that exams for district court judges should match the exams conducted by judicial service for gazetted first class officers.

The petitioner has stated in his writ that Article 109 of the Interim Constitution has stipulated that district court judges should be appointed on the basis of open competition.

Article 109 (3) states that any citizen of Nepal who has a Bachelor’s Degree in law and has worked in the post of Gazetted Second Class level in the Judicial Service for at least three years or has practiced law for at least eight years as a law graduate advocate shall be considered eligible for appointment as a District Judge.

Article 109 (4) stipulates that in appointing a law graduate advocate as a district judge pursuant to Clause (3), a person who has passed the written and oral examination conducted by the Judicial Council shall be so appointed. The method of such examination and other procedures shall be as determined by law.

The petitioner said that the JC’s recent decision to appoint district court judges from among the under-secretaries of the judicial service was a violation of a Supreme Court order passed on June 18, 2014 and violated lawyers’ right to employment.

The petitioner also asked the court to issue a directive in the name of the government to incorporate provisions in the new constitution mandating the appointment of judges on the basis of open competition at all levels. The petitioner has also sought an interim order. The first hearing of the case is scheduled for tomorrow.