Lawyer Moves Calcutta High Court Against 2024 Notification Conferring Senior Designating On 81 Advocates

A lawyer has approached the Calcutta High Court challenging a 2024 notification conferring senior designating on 81 advocates while rejecting applications of 48 advocates, allegedly without disclosing their marks or evaluation criteria. 

The matter will be considered tomorrow by Justice Krishna Rao.

The petitioner, an advocate with 24 years of practise, has challenged the process adopted for the designation of Senior Advocates under the Gazette notification of July 27, 2023. 

The plea states that he was recommended by a sitting judge in 2018, applied under both 2018 and 2023 frameworks, and fully complied with all procedural requirements. In 2018, his name appeared on a provisional successful list, but the process was stalled due to litigation. 

Under the 2023 framework, 130 candidates were considered, and interviews were held in September 2024. By notification dated November 26, 2024, only 81 advocates were designated as senior advocates, while the rest, including the petitioner, were placed on a 'deferred list', allegedly without any reasons, marks, or criteria being disclosed. 

The petition claims that no information was provided regarding the evaluation methodology, cut-off marks or scores obtained by the candidates. This, the petitioner claims, deprived him of the ability to understand the basis of rejection and undermined the transparency and fairness of the process. 

It has been argued that the Rules do not permit the creation of any deferred list and that such deferral was ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). 

The petition states, 'Such arbitrary deferral, without assigning any reasons or following a transparent process, violates the principles of equality, fairness, and legitimate expectation, and amounts to a clear breach of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Petitioner further submits that this has caused professional prejudice, dented his professional dignity, and has deprived him of the recognition and status that he rightfully deserves'. 

Despite assurances that the deferred candidates would be reconsidered in April 2025, no timely action was taken, it is alleged. Eventually, in December 2025, the applications of all the deferred candidates were rejected "without reasons", followed by a formal disapproval letter of December 18, 2025, "again without disclosure of evaluation criteria or marks".

It is also contended that the scoring under clause 7(6)(2)(a) of the Notification was to be applied exclusively to advocates who have argued the case as lead counsel and not to those who appeared merely as juniors.

It further states, 'in the absence of any statutory or rule-based backing, the Respondents could not have supplemented or altered the prescribed procedure by executive or administrative fiat. Such deviation from the notified Rules is impermissible in law and renders the impugned action illegal, unreasonable, and liable to be set aside under the writ jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India'. 

The petition thus seeks to quash the impugned notification of November 2024 and the disapproval letter of December 2025. It also seeks reconsideration of the petitioner's application by applying uniform criteria, disclosing the evaluation standards and passing a reasoned order. 

Case Title: Smarajit Roychowdhury v High Court Administration through its Registrar General