NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the experience of a judge of the lower judiciary could not be treated at par with the service of a lawyer for recruitment as a judge for higher judiciary from the bar quota for which an advocate needed to have minimum seven years of continuous practice.A bench of Justices Arun Mishra , Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat rejected the plea of lower judiciary judges who contended that their experience as judges be treated at par with the bar service of advocates and they be permitted to apply for higher judiciary. They argued that those in judicial service were better qualified because they had experience in discharging functions relating to a judicial office, whereas advocates did not have such benefit.Noting that only a fourth (25%) of posts in the cadre of district judge were earmarked for advocates and the remaining 75% was filled exclusively from judicial officers, the bench said there was nothing wrong to keep judicial officers out of consideration for the post of district judge under the quota earmarked for advocates and the rule was valid.“An advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than seven years as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment as district judge. Members of judicial service having seven years’ experience... of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of seven years as lawyer and member of judiciary are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as district judge,” the bench said.“The rules framed by the HC prohibiting judicial service officers from staking claim to the post of district judge against the posts reserved for advocates by way of direct recruitment cannot be said to be ultra vires .”