Senior Advocate Designation | Permanent Committee Not Empowered To Withhold/Defer Candidature Of Some Advocates From Full Court: Orissa HC

In an important development, the Orissa High Court has held that the 'Permanent Committee' constituted for designation of Senior Advocates is not empowered to withhold/eliminate/defer candidature of some Advocates without submitting their names to the Full Court for consideration.Clarifying the scope of functioning of the 'Permanent Committee', the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –“Specifically, Rule 6(6) requires that all names considered by the Permanent Committee, together with its assessment report, be submitted to the Full Court. This provision does not grant the Permanent Committee the authority to restrict submissions to only those names meeting a specified cut-off score, or to withhold, eliminate, or defer any candidate's name following the interactions mandated by Rule 6(5).”Factual BackgroundBanshidhar Baug, a practicing Advocate having experience of around 43 years, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the Permanent Committee to submit his name along with a comprehensive assessment report to the Full Court for consideration of his candidature for designation as a Senior Advocate.The petitioner initially applied for designation in the year 2013-14. However, his application was deferred and while the matter stood thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) provided elaborate guidelines for designation of Senior Advocates.Pursuant to such guidelines, the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 ('2019 Rules') was framed by the High Court. Under such Rules, an advertisement was published by the Court on 22.04.2019 calling application from eligible candidates for designation as Senior Advocates.The petitioner alleged that before compliance of the mandate under Rule 6(3) [soliciting views and suggestions on the candidature of applicants] of the 2019 Rules, the Permanent Committee recommended names of some of the Advocates for designation as Senior Advocates 08.08.2019.It was further apprised to the Court that on 09.08.2019, the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court issued a notification calling for suggestions and views regarding the candidature of several Advocates including the petitioner, but excluding the names of the Advocates whose names were recommended by the committee on 08.08.2019.On 19.08.2019, a notification was issued by the Court designating the recommended candidates as Senior Advocates. The petitioner being dissatisfied with such notification, challenged the same before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, vide its judgment dated 10.05.2021, declared Rule 6(9) of 2019 as void but upheld the notification designating the aforesaid Advocates as Senior Advocates. However, the Bench made it clear that the notification would remain effective until the Full Court rendered a fresh decision, taking into account all 48 applications, including the designated Advocates. The Court had also directed the process to be completed by the end of July 2021.The petitioner further averred that while his writ petition challenging the notification was pending, a notice was issued by the Court on 03.10.2019 directing all the 48 Advocates to appear for an interaction as per Rule 6(5) of the 2019 Rules. The petitioner appeared before the committee for interaction on 18.10.2019, but strikingly his application was deferred on 23.10.2019.Questions for ConsiderationAfter examining the facts of the case, the Court framed the following four questions for consideration:Whether the Permanent Committee has the authority to withhold or defer an Advocate's name from being submitted to the Full Court following the interaction stage, as prescribed by Rule 6(5) of the 2019 Rules? Whether the Permanent Committee possesses the authority to exclude the names of certain Advocates from consideration based on the points they have secured in the overall assessment? In light of the petitioner's fresh application in response to Advertisement No. 1 dated 22.04.2019, which adhered to the 2019 Rules and included the invitation of suggestions and views on his name under Rule 6(3), as well as his submission of reported and unreported decisions, articles, and particulars, and his participation in the interaction on 18.10.2019, was the Permanent Committee justified in deferring his case on 23.10.2019?Given the Division Bench's directive in its judgment dated 10.05.2021 in the aforementioned two writ petitions, which mandated the consideration of all 48 applications, including that of the petitioner and Opposite Parties Nos. 5 to 9, should the petitioner have been excluded from participating in the second interaction based on the prior decision made on 23.10.2019?Power Of Permanent Committee To Withhold CandidatesTo answer the question as to whether the Permanent Committee has power to withhold/defer the names of Advocates without submitting the same to the Full Court, the Court traced the ...

Senior Advocate Designation | Permanent Committee Not Empowered To Withhold/Defer Candidature Of Some Advocates From Full Court: Orissa HC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags