Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Bindu – Appellant
Versus
Hon`ble High Court of Delhi Through Its Registrar General – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking a review of the order dated 16.12.2022, whereby the above-captioned petition was rejected on the ground that the issues raised are covered by the decision of this Court in Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) No.17131/2022 decided on 15.12.2022.
2. The petitioner, in the present case, was enrolled as an advocate in January, 2006. Subsequently, some time in December, 2014, she was selected as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Delhi government, on a contractual basis. The petitioner was selected through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of the Examiner of Trademarks (qualifying for the said post on account of two years of practice in law). She discharged her functions as the Examiner of Trademarks during the course of her employment in the said post from 07.08.2017 to 08.02.2019. During the period of her employment as Examiner of Trademarks with the Patent Office, her enrolment as an advocate, with the Bar Council of India was suspended.
3. The petitioner was held to be ineligible for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) pursuant to
The eligibility criteria of seven years continuous practice as an advocate for appointment as a District Judge should be reckoned with reference to the last date for submitting the application, as pe....
The requirement of continuous practice for seven years under Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules aligns with Article 233(2) of the Constitution, validating the rule's constitutiona....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of continuous practice as an advocate immediately preceding the date of the application for appointment as a District Judge.
The eligibility criterion of 'having been continuously practicing as an Advocate for not less than seven years' as per Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules does not require an inquiry into the specific functi....
In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the ju....
An advocate ceases to practice when engaged in full-time employment, rendering them ineligible for judicial recruitment under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of 'continuously practicing advocate for not less than 7 years' for selection to the Delhi Higher Judicial....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Advocates Act, 1961 recognizes only advocates as legal practitioners, and the 25% advocate's recruitment quota for District Judges is rese....
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
