The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to the Rules of 2018 for designation of Senior Advocate and the need for transparency in the designation process, especially when the Advocate General is a candidate.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, J .

1. Heard Mr.Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Sumesh Bajaj & Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.Prasoon Bhaduri & Mr.Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr.Aman Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Mr.Navin Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr.K.R.Nair, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr.Sabyasachi Bhaduri & Mr.Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr.Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.8, Mr.Dhiraj Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No.9, Mr.Chandresh Shrivastava & Mr.Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.10, Mr.Kanwaljeet Singh Saini & Ms.Archi Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.11, Mr.Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Mr.Anis Tiwari & Mr.Prateek Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.12, Mr.Hariom Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.13 and Mr.Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for intervener-Mr.T.K.Tiwari.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the notification no.5333/SCDSA/2021 dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) in respect of R.2 to R.13 in the interest of justice.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to this petition.

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to defer the status of the Designation of Senior Advocate i.e. for R.2 to R.13 until the pendency of this petition in the interest of Justice.

10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other suitable order/orders, relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may find fit and proper in favour of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.”

3. The respondents have filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of writ petition stating inter-alia that the petitioner has apparently filed this writ petition in his personal capacity and not as a PIL. He has only challenged the notification designating the private respondents as Senior Advocates. Even if the petitioner was to succeed, he having not claimed any relief for himself, the whole exercise would be academic and futile. Such a petition is not maintainable in law. Designation of Senior Advocate is the prerogative and power of the High Court under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act read with Rule 3 & 7 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 2018’). There is neither any fundamental nor legal right vested in any Advocate to be designated as Senior Advocate. Once there is consideration by the designating authority in accordance with the procedure laid down and the decision is arrived, no further legal right accrues to challenge the same.

4. It is further submitted that if the petitioner wishes to claim that the petitioner also deserves to be designated as Senior Advocate, this would also not provide any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the designation of private respondents as Senior Advocates because there is no inter-relation between the designation of respondents No. 2 to 13 as Senior Advocate with the designation or non-designation as Senior Advocate of the petitioner. It is also submitted that so far as the selection process is concerned, the petitioner has no right to challenge the same after taking part in the process, therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed on singular count that the petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for want of locus standi of the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the recommendation of the committee and decision of respondent No.1 of not finding the petitioner suitable for designation as Senior Advocate. Even assuming that the process and the decision is open to judicial review, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek judicial review. The petition does not prima facie disclose any cause o