Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Praveen Garg – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to rule 9(2) concerning eligibility criteria. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background details of the petitioner’s legal practice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of the examination process and petitioner's ineligibility. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. interpretation of article 233(2) regarding qualification. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. supreme court precedents on eligibility criteria clarified. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. validation of rule 9(2) in light of supreme court decisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. challenges based on judicial precedents and relevance. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services Rules, 1970 (hereafter `the Rules') as amended on 08.02.2022. The petitioner claims that the said rule is ultra vires Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner claims that he had practiced as an advocate cumulatively for a period of 7 years and 2 months as on 12.03.2022 - the last date to apply for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, 2022 (hereafter `the DH
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
