Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court

"The prescription of qualifications, eligibility conditions, procedure and criteria for selection falls primarily within the domain of the employer or the authority conducting the selection." Delhi High Court, in a judgment dated September 28, 2026, dismissed a challenge to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority’s (DSLSA) empanelment policy, holding that administrative authorities possess the discretion to regulate the application process through restrictive clauses.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a condition limiting candidates to a single application for a specific panel and district does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness, noting that the court cannot sit in appeal over the structural choices made by a selecting body.

The petitioner, an advocate, had sought to strike down Clause A(C) of the notice dated June 1, 2026, which mandated that candidates submit only one application for one preferred panel and DLSA, with multiple submissions resulting in summary rejection. The petitioner argued that this restriction was arbitrary, particularly when contrasted with Clause A(D), which allows already empaneled advocates to relinquish previous panels upon selection.

Scope Of Judicial Review

The court underscored that the determination of eligibility criteria and selection procedures is a matter of administrative policy. The judiciary’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to cases of patent illegality or manifest arbitrariness. In the present case, the impugned clause applied uniformly to all candidates and did not violate any fundamental right or statutory provision.

Distinction Between Clauses

The petitioner’s argument regarding the alleged conflict between Clause A(C) and Clause A(D) was found to be without merit. The court observed that the two provisions function at different stages and cover distinct scenarios. Clause A(D) addresses the post-selection requirement of relinquishing existing panel memberships, whereas Clause A(C) is a procedural tool to regulate the submission process itself.

"The existence of a mechanism for dealing with an existing empanelment, therefore, cannot by itself invalidate the separate condition regulating the number of applications that may be submitted in the present selection process."

Administrative Discretion In Selection

The bench emphasized that the respondent authority is entitled to devise a process that ensures administrative efficiency. The court held that the requirement to specify one preferred panel and one preferred DLSA was a valid exercise of administrative discretion intended to streamline the recruitment process. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the policy.

Impact Of Delayed Challenge

Furthermore, the court took note of the timeline of the proceedings. The application process concluded on June 17, 2026, and the empanelment process had already advanced significantly, with interviews and document verification underway across multiple DLSAs. Given the advanced stage of the selection process, the court concluded that no effective relief could be granted, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026