Back
Upholds DSLSA Rule Restricting Advocates to Single Empanelment Application
A Single Shot: Challenging the One-Application Rule
The has firmly upheld a condition in the Delhi State Legal Services Authority’s (DSLSA) empanelment notice that limits advocates to submitting only one application, choosing a single panel and district. Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a petition by , who argued that Clause A(C) of the notification was arbitrary and unconstitutional because it prevented eligible candidates from applying to multiple simultaneously.
Domain of the Employer: Court Defers to Authority’s Discretion
The Court underscored that prescribing qualifications, eligibility conditions, and selection procedures falls primarily within the domain of the employer or the authority conducting the selection. in such matters is limited, and the Court does not sit in appeal over how the authority structures its selection process. Justice Mahajan observed: “The in such matters is limited, and the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authority as to the manner in which the selection process is to be structured.”
Clause A(C) vs A(D): Two Different Stages
The petitioner pointed to Clause A(D) of the same notice, which allows an advocate already empanelled elsewhere to relinquish one panel within a month of selection under the new process. He argued that this made the irrational. The Court rejected that contention, explaining that the clauses operate at different stages and in different circumstances. “The existence of a mechanism for dealing with an existing empanelment, therefore, cannot by itself invalidate the separate condition regulating the number of applications that may be submitted in the present selection process,” the Court noted. It added that Clause A(D) does not confer any right to submit multiple applications in the ongoing process.
No : Process Already in Motion
The Court also highlighted a practical reason for dismissal: the application window closed on , and the empanelment process had already progressed across all three DLSAs. Interviews had begun in , document verification was underway in , and scrutiny was in progress in . “Thus, no can be awarded at this stage,” the Court concluded.
What This Means for Aspiring Empanelled Advocates
By refusing to interfere, the has affirmed that DSLSA and similar bodies enjoy broad latitude in designing their selection criteria. The decision reinforces that conditions uniformly applied to all candidates—such as a —will not be struck down absent a showing of or . Advocates seeking empanelment must now carefully choose their preferred DLSA and panel at the time of application, as multiple bids will be summarily rejected.
Key Observations from the Judgment
- “The prescription of such conditions falls within the domain of the authority responsible for the empanelment process.”
- “In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner has failed to establish that Clause A(C) suffers from any or warranting interference in exercise of its under .”
The was dismissed, along with all pending applications.
