The main legal point established is that UGC recognition is not required for colleges affiliated to recognized universities for the selection process of law clerks.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Patel, J.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. We grant leave to the Petitioner to appear in person.

3. The Petitioner is a law student. He recently graduated with an LLB in 2021 from the Pravin Gandhi College of Law. He seeks a writ of certiorari to quash three notices at Exhibits “A”, “A-1” and “A-2” to the Petition. Alternatively, he seeks certiorari to quash clause (2) of Exhibit “A”. The third prayer is for a mandamus to add the Petitioner’s name to the list of eligible candidates for the selection process for law clerks in this High Court.

4. Exhibit “A” is an advertisement dated 2nd March 2023 inviting applications for the position of law clerks in the Bombay High Court (at its Principal Seat and at its Benches in Aurangabad and Nagpur). Exhibit “A-1” is a list of 687 persons whose applications were rejected. That communication is of 12th April 2023. The Petitioner’s name is at Sr No 639 of this list and the reason for rejection was that the Petitioner had not submitted a recommendation as per the advertisement. Twenty of the rejected persons filed representations. On 17th April 2023, the Petitioner filed an representation. On 9th May 2023, the Respondent, the Registrar-General, published a notice accepting some of the representations. The Petitioner was not among the persons whose representations were accepted. The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 17th May 2023 (during the summer recess). He then sought a listing vide a praecipe dated 13th June 2023. By this time, the selection/interview process (before a committee of two judges) had begun.

5. The advertisement in question was admittedly issued pursuant to certain revised guidelines adopted by the High Court for the assignment of work as Law Clerks.

6. The specific challenge is to what is described as the three-part “procedure for submitting applications”. There is some mismatch in the numbering between the Guidelines and the advertisement. eligibility criteria are set out in Clause 1 of the advertisement (corresponding to Guideline 2), and there is no quarrel with those criteria. There is also no quarrel with the other provisions of the guidelines or the advertisement, namely, the selection process, the nature of work, the honorarium, the term of the assignment, the restriction on practice, requirements of conduct and the schedule programme for a selection process.

7. Guideline 3, which is item 2 of the advertisement, reads thus :

2. Procedure for submitting Applications :-

(A) The candidature of each applicant should be recommended by the Principals of nay of the following institutions:

(i) National Law School, Bangalore

(ii) National Law School, Hyderabad

(iii) N. U. J. S. Law College, Calcutta

(iv) National Law School, Jodhpur

(v) Government Law Collage, Churchgate, Mumbai

(vi) ILS Law College, Pune

(vii) Symbiosis Law College, Pune

(viii) University College of Law, Nagpur

(ix) M.P. Law Collage, Aurangabad.

(x) Yashwant Law College, Nanded.

(xi) V.M. Salgaonkar, Law College, Miramar, Panaji.

(xii) Kare Law College, Margao, Goa or

(xiii) Any other reputed Law College recognized by University Grants Commission subject to approval by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

(B) The Applicants who have passed the L.L.B/L.L.M. examinations may in the alternative be recommended by :-

For Principal Seat at Bombay :-

(a) the President of the Bombay Bar Association ; or

(b) the President of the Advocates Association of Western India; or

(c) the President of the Incorporated Law Society

(d) For Bench at Nagpur

the President, High Court Bar Association, Nagpur.

(e) For Bench at Aurangabad

the President, High Court Bar Association, Aurangabad

(f) For Bench at Panji-Goa

the President, High Court Bar Association, Panji Goa The Pravin Gandhi College of Law is not in the list of named colleges, the principals of which can recommend the candidate.

8. Dr. Sathe for the Respondent draws our attention to Clause (xiii), emphasised above. He says that this allows other colleges to be included, provided they