Back
Directs DSLSA Panel to Prefer Third-Year Law Students for PLV Training
In a significant order concerning the induction of law students into the Para-Legal Volunteers (PLV) framework, the has directed the selection committee to finalize the recruitment process within one month and to consider giving preference to third-year law students who are on the verge of completing their courses.
The Dispute Over Delayed Induction
The petition was filed by Sidharth Yadav and another law student from the . They sought a challenging a communication dated , issued by the DSLSA regarding the PLV training program. The petitioners also sought a directing the authority to conduct the training programme in a time-bound manner for provisionally selected law students.
According to the petitioners, the , along with the , conducted a selection process in . A list of selected candidates was forwarded to the DSLSA on . The petitioners claimed that despite this, second and third-year students had not been recruited, even though more than 600 PLV vacancies existed with the DSLSA. The DSLSA had initially indicated that a valedictory function around would initiate the training schedule, but the programme was abruptly put on hold.
Arguments on the NALSA Scheme
The petitioners, appearing in person, argued that the Scheme for PLVs, read with , specifically provides for the induction of law students as PLVs and encourages such recruitment.
On the other hand, counsel representing the DSLSA drew the court's attention to the , which lists multiple categories from which PLVs can be selected, including teachers, retired government servants, social work students, doctors, students, law students, NGO members, and others. The scheme does not prescribe any fixed proportion of PLVs to be selected from any particular stream.
Court's Deliberations and Direction
Justice Jasmeet Singh noted that the scheme envisions about ten feeder cadres and that
"Students & Law Students (till they enroll as lawyers)"
constitute only one such category. The court observed that after shortlisting eligible candidates, a committee chaired by the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority undertakes the selection of the most appropriate candidates for training.
Given this structure, the court held that the only instruction that could be issued was a request to the committee to conclude the selection procedure in accordance with existing rules and regulations at the earliest. The court emphasized the need for expedition, stating:
“Since the 3rd year students would be passing out soon, it is expected that the Committee shall keep the same in mind and hopefully give them preference.”
The court directed that the needful be done within one month from the date of the order. With these directions, the petition was disposed of.
Implications
The order underscores the court's reluctance to interfere with the administrative discretion of DSLSA committees while still ensuring that the interests of law students—especially those in their final year—are protected. By urging the committee to give preference to third-year students, the court aims to prevent them from losing the opportunity to serve as PLVs before they graduate and become ineligible under the scheme's
"till they enroll as lawyers"
clause.
The judgment highlights the importance of timely recruitment in legal aid services and serves as a reminder to authorities to adhere to procedural timelines, particularly when students are involved.
