Deputy Registrar Of Chits Competent To Act As Arbitrator And Issue Recovery Certificates; Not Limited To Registrar Alone: Telangana High Court Custody With Biological Mother Presumed Lawful; Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not A Remedy To Enforce Foreign Court’s Return Orders: Bombay High Court Ocular Testimony Of Victim Prevails Over Medical Evidence In Rape Cases If Found Credible: Allahabad High Court Condonation Of Delay Should Follow Justice-Oriented Liberal Approach, Unintentional Delay Shouldn't Block Justice: Calcutta High Court Digital Banking Fraud: Clicking Suspicious Links Constitutes Customer Negligence; Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Bank Without Forensic Evidence: Delhi High Court Vexatious Matrimonial Complaints Filed As Counterblast To Divorce Is Abuse Of Process; Allegations Against In-Laws Must Be Specific: Gujarat High Court Sale Deed Executed By Son During Father's Lifetime Based On Manipulated Records Is Void Ab Initio: Karnataka High Court Charge Sheet E-Filed After Court Hours Deemed Filed Next Day; Accused Entitled To Default Bail: Kerala High Court Landowners Can't Use Antedated Stamp Papers To Defeat Ceiling Limits; Section 22 Land Reforms Act Prevails Over Registration Act: Madras High Court Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Mere Existence Of Dargah Doesn't Grant Jurisdiction To Waqf Board; Statutory Survey Under Sections 4 & 5 Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Sets Aside Interim Stay On Delhi Race Club Eviction; Says Courts Can't Halt Statutory Proceedings Without Recording Finding On Prima Facie Case

Delhi High Court Upholds Appointment of Legal Consultant for Judicial Service, Rejects Challenge on Eligibility

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the appointment of a legal consultant for judicial service, dismissing a challenge to the eligibility criteria. The court ruled that the engagement of the legal consultant, who was engaged on a contractual basis by the Department of Legal Affairs, did not violate Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

The court emphasized the nature of services performed by the legal consultant, which included conducting court cases and appearing in courts on behalf of the Central Government. The engagement was clearly described as a professional service, and the legal consultant was not considered a full-time salaried employee.

Delhi court stated, "We are unable to accept that the engagement of respondent no.5 with the Department of Legal Affairs can be construed as respondent no.5 being 'a full-time salaried employee'. As stated above, respondent no.5 was not paid any salary by the Government of India."

The court also referred to a previous Supreme Court decision, highlighting the functionality test, which distinguishes between the engagement of an advocate to provide services in the practice of law versus other kinds of legal work. It concluded that the legal consultant's engagement satisfied the requirements and did not compromise their independence as a professional advocate.

Addressing the petitioner's challenge, the court upheld the decision of the committee of the Delhi High Court, which had examined the legal consultant's engagement and found it to be in compliance with the relevant rules. The petitioner's contention regarding the award of additional marks in certain papers of the examination was also deemed unsustainable, leading to the direction of redrawing the select list of candidates.

 Date of Decision: July 12, 2023

 SUDEEP RAJ SAINI     vs HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.         

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Sudeep_Raj_Saini_vs_High_Court_Of_Delhi_Ors_on_12_July_2023_Del_HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News