Both Serving & Retired Group-A Officers Eligible For Special Metropolitan Magistrate Posts: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has clarified that both serving and retired government officers who have held Group A posts for a minimum of five years and possess law degrees are eligible to be appointed as Special Metropolitan Magistrates (SMMs).
A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held, “The position as it emerges from Section 18(1) of the CrPC and Rules 3 and 4 of the 1988 Rules, as we have already noted, is that (i) persons who were, on 23 September 2023, holding Group-A posts under the Government of NCT of Delhi or the Central Government, and had held such posts for five years, as well as (ii) persons who had retired from Group-A posts under the Central Government or Government of NCT of Delhi after having held such posts for five years, were both eligible to apply for appointment as SMM.”
Advocate Santosh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Amit George for the Respondents.
The Court interpreted the relevant legal provisions, including Section 18(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Delhi Petty Offences (Trial by Special Metropolitan Magistrates) Rules, 1998, and the instructions laid out in the online application manual and form.
The Court observed that these provisions collectively make it evident that eligibility for the position of SMM extends to both.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a retired Director (Prosecution), who had challenged the appointment of six individuals selected for the post of SMM pursuant to an advertisement dated August 25, 2023.
He contended that the candidates selected were serving officers as of the cut-off date (September 23, 2023), whereas, according to his interpretation of the applicable rules and the online application system, only retired officers were eligible to apply.
He specifically referred to certain fields in the online application form and user manual that required uploading a “retirement certificate” and indicating the “date of retirement,” arguing that this implied exclusivity for retired officers.
However, the Bench rejected this argument, noting that the presence of an asterisk denoting a “mandatory field” in the online form only applied to those applicants who were in fact retired. This requirement, the Court clarified, did not in any way restrict the application process to only retired officers.
The Court said that the fact that there was an asterisk against the fields regarding retirement documents merely signified that retired candidates were required to furnish those details. It did not indicate that the opportunity to apply was restricted only to such retired individuals.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed his plea and upheld the selection and appointment of the six SMMs.
Cause Title: Abdul Aleem v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., [2025:DHC:6489-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Santosh
Respondents: Advocates Dr. Amit George, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Adhishwar Suri, Rupam Jha, Medhavi Bhatia, Ibansara, Kartiyy Sharma, Man Mohan Goel, Kiran Saini, Kusum Saini, And Alpana Pandey.