MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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