Allahabad High Court rejects plea against Senior Designation of 75 lawyers; fresh designation to resume

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the petitions challenging the full court's 2019 decision to confer Senior Advocate designation on 75 lawyers [Vishnu Behari Tewari vs The High Court Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others]..The decision is likely to pave way for designation of more Senior Advocates at the High Court. During the pendency of the challenge against the 2019 list, the High Court did not undertake any exercise for conferment of Senior designation on the lawyers. The Supreme Court has asked the High Courts to carry out the exercise at least once a year. There are 143 Senior Advocates at the High Court - the total number of Advocate on Roll (AOR) is 26,170 at Prayagraj and 15,300 at Lucknow. 236 more are seeking the senior gown at present. .Dealing with the challenge against the 2019 list, the Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh said the entire exercise was conducted in a transparent and fair manner with objective consideration at every stage.“Even at the Full Court, three names did not go through. Two were declined. The fact that the petitioners may have missed out, may give them a right to be reconsidered as contemplated under the Rules where any applicant who may not be successful at seeking designation in one full court may be reconsidered after two years. Yet, the petitioners may not have acted recklessly, by giving wings to their worst imaginations,” the Court said..The two petitioners Vishnu Behari Tewari and Colonel Ashok Kumar had sought conferment of Senior designation but their names were not cleared by the permanent committee in charge of scrutinising the applications for the gown. The petitioners moved the Court challenging their exclusion. They said the waiver of interview requirement was not in accordance with the law laid down by the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in the Indira Jaising case.It was also submitted that marks were not awarded out of 100 but only 75 and the permanent committee did not disclose to the full court the marks awarded to the individual applicants. It was also argued that the permanent committee erred in fixing the cut off marks and not sending the names of all applicants to the full court along with its assessment report. .However, the Bench said that the Supreme Court even in the Indira Jaising’s case, had allowed or left it open to the permanent committee to evolve an objective or rational criteria to “clear” or recommend only such application to the full court, as it may consider fit.The High Court also said that the criteria to shortlist all applicants based on qualifying marks fixed by the permanent committee was rational, fair, objective and transparent.On the lack of personal interview of the applicants, the Court said the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that no distinction by way of designation as a Senior Advocate may be conferred except against prior interview granted - with suo moto designations being an exception to that rule..However, in the present case, the Court said the issue of lack of interview may have arisen only at the instance of those short-listed, but not the rest. "The petitioners not being shortlisted on the basis of cut-off marks prescribed, they never earned a right to be interviewed by the Permanent Committee. Thus, out of 78 applicants shortlisted by the Permanent Committee, initially, three applicants were not conferred designation at the Full Court. The claim of one applicant was deferred and to two others the distinction was positively declined. The applicant whose application was deferred was also granted designation, later. The other two applicants never challenged the action of the Full Court. Five years have passed since then. No challenge may even arise or exist on that count, now,” said the Court. The Bench further said that it does not find any justification to consider the possibility of the present challenge for reason of passage of time.Five years have passed and those designated have been regularly appearing before the courts, the Bench stated.“The distinction conferred may never be thought to be withdrawn or be doubted now for reason of interview not held five years ago. Equally, no useful purpose may be serve in now requiring that condition to be fulfilled, at this later stage, with these facts,” the Court said. .The permanent committee, being burdened with the onerous task of scrutinising applications to determine the suitability for conferment of distinction as Senior Advocate, works on an implied trust, it added“It is required to screen those applications to help the full court form its subjective opinion. There is no quarrel that such objective criteria was adopted,” the Court concluded. .Advocate Vishnu Behari Tewari appeared in person. Advocate Rohit Kumar represented advocate Colonel Ashok Kumar. Senior Advocate GK Singh with advocates Ashish Mishra and Chandan Sharma represented the Allahabad High Court.[Read Judgment]