Lawyer Challenges Notification Issued By Orissa High Court Conferring 'Senior Designation' On 8 Advocates

"That the action of the permanent committee sending nine names including the names of the opposite party No. 4 to 11 to the Hon'ble Full Court is completely arbitrary, discriminatory and not bona fide the same being contrary to the Rules, 2019."

Factual Background:

Advocate Mr. Banshidhar Baug, the present petitioner applied for being designated as a Senior Advocate during 2013-14 as per the guidelines of the Rules of 2011 published on 13.06.2011. While the matter was pending for consideration, the Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising (supra), framed the Rules called as the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. In the said Rules, the detailed procedures were prescribed for application by the intending Advocates and proposals given by Judges and the Chief Justice for designating a particular Advocate as Senior Advocate.

As per the said Rules, it was prescribed that there shall be a Permanent Committee consisting of the Chief Justice, two senior-most Judges of the High Court, the Advocates General of the State of Odisha and a designated Senior Advocate of the Bar to be nominated by the Members of the Committee. After constitution of the Permanent Committee, the Court through its Registrar (Judicial) vide Advertisement No. 1 dated 22.04.2019 called for applications from eligible intending candidates for being designated as Senior Advocates as per the Rules.

After framing of the Rules, 2019 and issuance of the Advertisement No. 1 dated 22.04.2019, the Special Officer (Special Cell) of the Court directed the petitioner to re-submit a fresh application for being designated as Senior Advocate. In pursuance of the letter dated 22.04.2019 issued by the Special Officer (Special Cell), the petitioner applied in the prescribed format for being designated as Senior Advocate on dated 22.05.2019.

Along with other advocates, the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 11 also applied for being designated as Senior Advocates as per the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was also noticed by the Special Officer (Special Cell) of the Court on 02.07.2019 to furnish the required documents, i.e., the declaration as per the advertisement. While the matter stood thus and before compliance of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, the Permanent Committee recommended the names of the opposite party No. 4 to 8 for being designated as Senior Advocates on 08.08.2019.

That on the next day, i.e., on 09.08.2019, as per Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 2019, the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court issued notice inviting suggestions and views, if any, against the petitioner as well as 45 other Applicant-Advocates. In those 45 names, the name of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 did not find place. The last date for receiving the suggestion and views as per the notice dated 09.08.2019 was fixed to 08.09.2019.

While the matter stood thus, awaiting the views and proposals as per notice dated 09.08.2019, the Full Court meeting of the Court was held on 17.08.2019 and in the said Full Court meeting, along with other works, one agenda was with regard to the minutes of the Permanent Committee for designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates held on 08.08.2019. The Full Court approved the recommendation of the Permanent Committee. Subsequently, the Chief Justice designated the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 as Senior Advocates and the same was notified by the Registrar General on 19.08.2019.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the declaration of the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 8 as Senior Advocates in exercise of suo motu power under Rule 6(9) of the Rules filed a writ petition before the High Court, not only for quashing the inclusion of the suo motu power of the High Court under sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the Rules, which was contrary to the guidelines of Indira Jaising's case (supra), but also to quash the declaration of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 as Senior Advocates. A Division Bench of the Court after hearing the parties, by a common judgment dated 10.05.2021 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and others in part and declared sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2019 as ultra vires as the same was not in consonance with the judgment of Indira Jaising (supra).

Further, the Court held that the entire process of conferring designation of Senior Advocates on the Opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 was discriminatory. However, the Court directed that notice dated 19.08.2019 would cease to operate after a decision is taken by the Full Court in the matter regarding designation of Senior Advocate is placed before it after exhausting the entire process under Rule 6 of the Rules.

When the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and three other advocates were pending, by a notice dated 03.10.2019, 48 advocates were directed to appear for interaction as per Rule 6(5). The petitioner also appeared before the Permanent Committee on dated 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019. The interaction held on 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 as per notice dated 03.10.2019 is still in force and the same is never cancelled as yet and no notification in that regard has been issued.

In the said interaction dated 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019, the present opposite party Nos. 9, 10 and 11 also appeared. Subsequently, the Permanent Committee notified the names of opposite party Nos. 5 to 9 in the website as per Rule 6(3) inviting suggestion and views within a period of fifteen days. Thereafter, the Permanent Committee by a notice dated 21.04.2022 issued notice to 40 advocates including the present Opposite party Nos. 4 to 11 for their appearance before it on 24.04.2022 for fresh interaction by virtual mode.

After the interaction dated 24.04.2022, the Permanent Committee recommended the names of nine advocates including the present Opposite party Nos. 4 to 11 for being considered by the Full Court for their declaration as Senior Advocate. Accordingly, the Full Court was held on 27.04.2022 and out of nine names, it considered and approved only eight names, i.e., the present Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 11 for being designated as Senior Advocate. Thereafter, the Chief Justice declared the said eight advocates as Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 7(1) of the Rules.

Being aggrieved by non-recommendation of his name by the Permanent Committee and the decision of the Full Court declaring the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 11 as Senior Advocates by Notification dated 27.04.2022, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

Contentions and Averments:

It was averred that as per Rule 6(5) of the Rules, after the overall assessments by the Permanent Committee, all the names listed before it are required to be submitted to the Full Court along with assessment report. Thus, the Permanent Committee has no authority under the Rules or under Section 16 of the Act to pick-up names of advocates who have applied under the Rules for being designated as Senior Advocates and who have appeared for interaction before it.

The petitioner further highlighted that the power of the Permanent Committee is confined only to doing ground works and processing the applications. After interacting with applicants, the Committee has jurisdiction to assign points to the advocates who appeared for interaction as per Rule 6(5). As per Appendix-B of the Rules, ten points is to be awarded to the applicant who has put in practice up to 20 years and 20 points to the applicants who have more than 20 years of practice. For reported judgments 40 points is to be awarded. For publication by the applicant-advocate 15 point is to be awarded and lastly, for test of personality and suitability on the basis of the interview/interaction, 25 point is assigned.

So, the petition stated that the Permanent Committee can only give points to the applicant-advocates who appeared before it for interaction from and out of 25 points judging the personality and suitability of the concerned applicant-advocates. Thereafter, it is required to make an overall assessment and to total the points awarded in favour of applicant-advocates. Then, all the names listed before it is forwarded to the Full Court along with its assessment report for consideration of the Full Court. The Full Court has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise its power under Section 16(2) of the Act read with Rule 6(7) of the Rules, 2019 to confer designations.

It was further pointed out that as per Rule 6(8) of the Rules, the cases which are not favourably considered by the Full Court may be reviewed or re-considered after expiry of two years following the same procedure as prescribed as if the proposal is being considered afresh. Hence, there is no provision in the Rules which says what will happen if the Permanent Committee does not send the name of an applicant-advocate to the Full Court after interaction/interview is conducted and overall assessment is made by giving points to him as per Appendix-B to the Rules. Hence, it was submitted that the Permanent Committee has no authority to withhold the name of the applicant-advocate including the petitioner who has appeared before the Permanent Committee for interaction/interview.

Therefore, it was contended that the Permanent Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction and has acted contrary to the Rules by recommending only the nine names including the Opposite party Nos. 5 to 12 to the Full Court for consideration for being declared as Senior Advocates. The petitioner alleged that the Permanent Committee has not placed the names of all applicant-advocates who appeared for interaction held on 17.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 as well as the interaction held on 22.04.2022 and thereby, it has kept the Full Court in dark.

The petition further stated that the Full Court of the High Court under Section 16(2) of the Act while designating an advocate as Senior Advocate expresses collective opinion of all the Judges which cannot be curtailed or reduced by the formation of the Permanent Committee by the Rules. It was averred that the power and function of the Full Court under Section 16(2) of the Act and Rule 6(7) of the Rules cannot be delegated to be exercised by any other body including the Permanent Committee.

Accordingly, it was prayed that the aforesaid notification dated 27^th April 2022, which conferred senior designations on eight advocates, be quashed. Further, it was prayed that the names of the petitioner along with other advocates and the opposite party nos. 4 to 11 be sent to the Full Court for fresh consideration.

Case Title: Sri Banshidhar Baug v. Orissa High Court & Ors.