Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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