Advocates practicing in District Courts are eligible for appointment as High Court Judges, and the Chief Justice of the High Court has a constitutional obligation to consider their cases when making recommendations for appointments.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition tiled by Shri Subir Chowdhury, a practising Advocate of the Judges Court at Alipore raises a question of some Constitutional Importance affecting the selection and appointment of Judges in the High Court. The petitioner's grievance is that the Advocates practising in the District Courts of West Bengal and who possess the requisite qualification as stipulated in Sub-clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution to be appointed as High Court Judges, are never considered for such appointment, and as such the fundamental rights guaranteed to such Advocates under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution have been violated.

( 2 ) AT the very inception the question of maintainability of this Writ Petition has to be gone into as this question has been mooted by Mr. D. P. Wadhwa appearing on behalf of the Union of India and by the learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal.

( 3 ) AT the time of praying for a Rule Nisi as well as in the course of hearing of the Writ Petition Shri Chowdhury made it clear that he was not an aspirant for the post of a High Court Judge but he was espousing the cause of the Advocates who practise in the District Courts of West Bengal. No Particular Advocate can come before this Court and say that he has a constitutional or legal right to be considered for appointment as a High Court Judge. On the other hand, if an Advocate practising in a District Court raises a question on behalf of the District Courts' Advocates as a class that although some of them may possess the requisite constitutional qualification for being appointed as a High Court Judge, appointments to the High Court from the Bar have till now been the sole monopoly of the Advocates practising in this High Court, the question can certainly be gone into by this High Court in the exercise of its powers under the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction.

( 4 ) IN the case of S. P. Gupta v. The President of India reporter in Mr. Justice P N. Bhagwati made the following observations (at p. 195) :"the profession of lawyers is an essential and integral part of I he judicial sys-tem and lawyers may figuratively be described as priests in the temple of justice. They assist the court in dispensing justice and it can hardly be disputed that without their help, it would be well nigh impossible for the Court to administer justice. They are really and truly officers of the Court in which they daily sit and practice. They have, therefore, a special interest in preserving the integrity and independence of the judicial system and if the integrity or independence of the judiciary is threatened by any act of the State or any public authority, they would naturally be concerned about it, because they are equal partners with the Judges in the administration of Justice. "

( 5 ) MR. Chowdhury was supported by Mr. Balai Chandra Roy appearing on behalf of the Citv Court Bar Association. Mr. Biswanath Bai- Payee on behalf of the Calcutta Small Causes Court Bar Association and Mr. Swadesh Bhusan Bhunia on behalf of the Bar Council of West Bengal. Mr. Roy contended that under the Advocates Act there is only one class of Advocates and all of them have a right to be consider ed for appointment as High Court Judges. It was further submitted that the constitutional obligation of the Chief Justice of the High Court was to find out the best available talent and by considering the cases of the lawyers practising in the subordinate Courts, the Chief Justice would have a wider field to cover and there is always a possibility of better selections being made. Mr. Roy further submitted that the act of recommending the names by the Chief Justice cannot be a matter entirely for his subjective satisfaction and the Chief Justice must be guided by objective considerations to select the best available talent: this was a fundamental duty under Article 51a (it of the Constitution.

( 6 ) MR. Swadesh Bhusan Bhunia supported the argument