Table of Contents
75 Lawyers Dismissed in Allahabad High Court; New Round of Appointments Pending
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed the petitions for review of the full court’s order of January 9, 2019 by which 75 lawyers were given designation of ‘Senior Advocate’ [Vishnu Behari Tewari vs The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others].
It has the potential to open flood gates for replenishing the list of more Senior Advocates within the High Court level.
During the pendency of the challenge against the 2019 list, the High Court did not embark on any process for bestowal of Senior status on the lawyers. The Apex Court has encouraged the High Courts to conduct the exercise at least once in a year.
High Court 143 Senior Advocates while total Advocate on Roll (AOR) is 26,170 at Prayagraj and 15,300 at Lucknow.
1 236 more are looking for the senior gown at the moment.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh while dealing with challenge against the 2019 list stated about the entire exercise that it is fully transparent and it has been done in a fair manner with objective consideration at every stage.
“Even at the Full Court, three names did not go through. Two were declined. The fact that the petitioners may have missed out, may give them a right to be reconsidered as contemplated under the Rules where any applicant who may not be successful at seeking designation in one full court may be reconsidered after two years. Yet, the petitioners may not have acted recklessly, by giving wings to their worst imaginations,” the Court held
Both the cases have been handled by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh
Two of the petitioners were Vishnu Behari Tewari and Colonel Ashok Kumar, both had applied for the Senior designation and they were not cleared by the permanent committee that is entrusted with the responsibility of checking application for the gown.
The affected candidates argued themselves to Court seeking to provide avenues why they were locked out. They argued that the waiver of interview requirement was contrary to the law stated by the Supreme Court in the Indira Jaising case for 2017.
This argument inter alia stated that marks were not given out of one hundred instead they were given out of seventy- five and that the permanent committee did not reveal to the full court the marks given to the individual applicants.
Another issue which was raised was that the permanent committee was wrong to lock up the cut off marks and not forwarding the names of all applicants to the full court together with the assessment report.
Nonetheless, the Bench held that the Supreme Court, even in Indira Jaisingh’s case has allowed or left it open for the permanent committee to frame an objective rational criteria to “clear” or recommend only such an application to the Full Court as may be suitable to the Supreme Court.
It was also observed by the High Court that criteria for short listing all the applicants according to qualifying marks fixed by the permanent committee were also rational; they were reasonable; they were wise; and they were clear.
Regarding lack of personal interview of the applicants, the Court held that the Supreme Court has categorically defined that no distinction by way of designation as Senior Advocate may been forced except against prior interview given, suo moto designation being the only exception to this rule.
However, in the present case, the Court said the issue of lack of interview may have arisen only at the instance of the candidate who had been short listed, not the other candidates.
Since the petitioners could not be shortlisted out of the cut off marks set for the examination they never had a right to be interviewed by the Permanent Committee. Therefore of the 78 applicants who were short-listed by the Permanent Committee at the beginning, three applicants did not receive a designation at a Full Court. One applicant had her claim for status put aside and to two others the possibility of a distinction was turned down categorically. The applicant who had his / her application deferred for the reasons earlier mentioned was also subsequently given a designation. Both the other two applicants never shown their discontent with the action that was taken by the Full Court. It was five years ago since then. There may be no challenge at all which may even arise or exist on that count, now, stated the Court.
The Bench further said that it does does not see any reason why it should entertain the chances for the present challenge in view of the time factor.
Five years down the line, those so selected have been frequently exhibiting before the courts, the Bench noted.
“The distinction conferred may never be thought to be withdrawn or be doubted now for reason of interview not held five years ago Equally, no useful purpose may be serve in now requiring that condition to be fulfilled, at this later stage, with these facts,” the Court.
It said that the permanent committee which is permanently saddled with the responsibility of reviewing the applications with a view to ascertaining the appropriateness of bestowing the distinction of Senior Advocate works on an implied trust.
To assist the full court in forming its subjective opinion, it is necessary to filter those applications There is no argument in that such objective criteria was adopted by the Court.
In person, an advocate Vishnu Behari Tewari. In this case advocate Rohit Kumar represented advocate Colonel Ashok Kumar.
Senior Advocate GK Singh along with advocates Ashish Mishra &Chandan Sharma appeared for High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
