Delhi High Court Praises Young Counsel For Being Thoroughly Prepared, Says Seniors Should Encourage Juniors To Argue

The Delhi High Court has praised a young counsel for being “thoroughly conversant” with the case file and record, observing that junior lawyers should be prepared to argue matters while senior counsel should not discourage them from presenting cases. 

A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Nivedita Anil Sharma made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal concerning the appointment of a Driver Ordinary Grade candidate under the OBC-NCL category.

The Court was dealing with the candidature of Girdhari Lal Jakhar, who had secured 161 out of 200 marks and ranked fifth in the selection process for the post of Driver Ordinary Grade.

AIIMS had rejected his candidature on the ground that the OBC-NCL certificate produced by him had not been issued between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021, as required under the recruitment advertisement.

The Court noted that AIIMS did not dispute the competence of the authority which issued the certificate, its genuineness or the correctness of the facts stated in it.

It also noted that there was no real dispute regarding Jakhar's eligibility and entitlement to be considered as an OBC-NCL candidate.

The Court further noted that AIIMS itself had granted Jakhar 15 days to produce a valid OBC-NCL certificate through its communication dated September 7, 2022.

Jakhar subsequently produced a certificate dated September 13, 2022, stating that he belonged to the OBC-NCL category for the financial year 2020-21.

The bench held that it would be unfair to reject the certificate merely because it was issued after the stipulated period, particularly when AIIMS itself had extended the time for production of the certificate and the respondent had furnished it within the extended period.

“…. it would be unfair to reject the certificate on the ground that it was not issued during the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, which was over more than a year and half before the extension letter was issued,” the Court said.

The Court also observed that obtaining the certificate was not within Jhakar's control and that the COVID-19 pandemic was at its peak during the relevant period.

It said it would be unrealistic to expect candidates to obtain such certificates during that period, when even travel within city limits was difficult.

The bench further noted that the certificate ultimately produced by Jakhar pertained to the financial year 2020-21 and therefore served the purpose underlying the requirement that his OBC-NCL status be established for that financial year.

While recording its appreciation for the counsel appearing for AIIMS, the Court noted that when senior counsel Anand Varma was arguing another matter, junior counsel Ayush Gupta argued the case himself and was thoroughly familiar with the record.

It noted that when Varma subsequently joined the proceedings, he did not “take over” the matter but assisted Gupta when required.

“This is what we expect of senior as well as junior counsel. The junior counsel should be prepared, and the senior counsel should not discourage the junior from presenting the case. We record our appreciation for Mr. Gupta as well as Mr. Varma. It gives us hope,” the Bench said.