Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Amar Vivek Aggarwal and Others – Petitioners
Versus
High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 687 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Order - Allocation of Marks to Counsel - The court clarified the allocation of marks to counsel based on years of practice, modifying the previous order to allocate one mark for every year of practice between ten to twenty years.
Fact of the Case:
The court clarified the allocation of marks to counsel based on years of practice, modifying the previous order to allocate one mark for every year of practice between ten to twenty years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the submissions raised by Ms. Indira Jaising with respect to the allocation of marks to counsel were purely based on the text of the judgment as it stands, and therefore, clarified the situation and directed the modification of the allocation of marks.
Issues: The issue raised was the allocation of marks to counsel based on years of practice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to modify the allocation of marks to counsel, allocating one mark for every year of practice between ten to twenty years.
Final Decision: The court granted the modification of the allocation of marks to counsel and directed that the rest of the prayers made in the Miscellaneous Application No. 709 of 2022 shall be taken up along with other matters on 12.05.2022.
ORDER :
1. In terms of the Signed Order, certain directions have been issued in these matters. The relevant part of the Order reads as under:
xxx xxx xxx
However, insofar as the submissions raised by Ms. Indira Jaising with respect to Prayer (c) of Miscellaneous Application No. 709 of 2022 are concerned, we see no reason to defer the matter. The submissions arise purely on the text of the judgment as it stands.
We, therefore, clarify the situation and direct that instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, the marks be allocated commensurate with the standing of the person at the Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years. Prayer (c) made in the application is, therefore granted. This modification shall be effective from the date of this order.
Rest of the prayers made in the Miscellaneous Application No. 709 of 2022 shall be taken up alongwith other matters on 12.05.2022.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 527 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 454 OF 2015
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate submits that this Miscellaneous Application prays for similar relief as has been prayed for and granted in Miscellaneous Application No. 709 of 2022.
Since similar relief has been prayed for in Paragraph 8 of this miscellaneous application, this miscellaneous application is also disposed of in aforesaid terms.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 687 OF 2021; WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1077 OF 2021; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1502 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 454 OF 2015; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 709 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 454 OF 2015 AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 189 OF 2022
List these matters for further consideration on 12.05.2022.”
AI
Modification of the allocation of marks to counsel based on years of practice, allocating one mark for every year of practice between ten to twenty years.
Employment and Service matter – Pension - While considering Tribunal Rules of 2020, which were notified held Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and Members of Tribunals appointed prior, shall be governe....
Point of Law : It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judici....
The court affirmed that jurisdiction and suit valuations must be based solely on amended pleadings in accordance with procedural laws, rejecting external assertions not contained in the plaint.
The literal meaning of the words in ordinances should be accepted, and the interpretation contrary to the plain and literal meaning of the words should not be accepted.
The pensionary provisions of the appellant are governed by the Rules of 1989, and the appellant cannot seek payment of pension in a manner different from the one prescribed by the rules.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a statute, rule, or regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet, the court may not permit re-evaluati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
