https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192685 A person satisfies the qualification of having been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for the prescribed three-year period under section 7A(3)(aa) if he continued to hold that office, even while performing duties as Registrar of the High Court; actual performance of judicial work throughout the period is not required. The Central amendment of 1964 was treated as an exhaustive code for appointments in that category, so the Assam proviso requiring consultation with the High Court was repugnant and inoperative under Article 254. A Labour Court was not a "Tribunal" within section 7A(3)(b), so service as its Presiding Officer did not satisfy that qualification. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:37:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192685 A person satisfies the qualification of having been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for the prescribed three-year period under section 7A(3)(aa) if he continued to hold that office, even while performing duties as Registrar of the High Court; actual performance of judicial work throughout the period is not required. The Central amendment of 1964 was treated as an exhaustive code for appointments in that category, so the Assam proviso requiring consultation with the High Court was repugnant and inoperative under Article 254. A Labour Court was not a "Tribunal" within section 7A(3)(b), so service as its Presiding Officer did not satisfy that qualification. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192685