REMOVAL OF ILLIGIBILITY as three years practice as an advocate ,for judicial services, is harmfull for judiciary and litigants.

An advocate before entering in to judiciary ought to have at least 3-5 years of standing practice. Mere studying law at the college level is not at all sufficient. But  practical knowlege i.e. experience in practically handling the cases is a must. The cases that a judge at  junior division/JMFC level has to decide requires not only intellect but experience, understanding and  maturity in handling the same. It is ultimately the litigants who suffers.

To be a good advocate or juidicial officer at least 3 years experience is required.  Now we are seeing that what is the effect of removal of 3 years of experience for the eligibility of juidicial officers exam. Recently appointed judges they don't know anything except they are judges/.

Three years of experieince gives knowledge about the procedures and how to make orders what are the steps in the suits etc.,

Directly they will be appointed and such appointed judges without having the proper knowledge they act as if they are the great and they don't care for the advocates.  They want to act everybody as per their orders.

Whatever training they will get it is not sufficient and it is not scientific method.

So IN my opinion it is better to impose 3 yeras of experience is must.
 

Because of removal of 3 yeras experience is seriously affected the juidicial system. 

What is the yard stick to measure the capacity of an advocate to be fit to be approinted as judicial officer. Three years is not sufficient at least to understand the ABCD.... of law.  We have to bare with the rules and regulations.

What I recommed is to recruit advocates from the Bar directly as is done at HIgh court levels then the problem is solved. But such appointee shall be posted to other station.

Efficiency and ability cannot be judged by mere experience alone.Anybody who have aquired the law degree is expected to discharge the duties of legal profession. Be it advocate or judge, he is deemed a law officer capable of delivering the goods of legal profession. In this internet age, it is redundant to talk of experience rather than the capability to adjudicate as per the procedure and law.

I am of the view that three years in the bar is a sound practrice. However, experience should not be judge by years of practice as we find some advocates sitting or sleeping on the bench outside the senior  Chamber for 18 to 20 years. In this connection I would recomend the members to read a very interesting article written and contributed by Dr.Poonam saxena, Reader, Law centre II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, during the All India Law Teachers Congress under the theme "Lega education in the 21st century: Problems and Prospects 22-25 January 1999.In fact I intend to post this article in the forum.

I am incined to agree with the stipulation of experience for entry to the judicial positions. It is not unfair, for, such positions as these, considerable hands-on experience is necessary. Also not mere registration at the bar, but active practice would go a long way in deciding cases judiciously as well as professionally - as one occupies the august chair. ..Knowledge (bookish or otherwise) is one thing, and experience is quite another! This stipulation assumes more significance esp. in the present state of dwindling standards of legal education.