Allahabad High Court has held that an advocate accepting a job in bank ceases to be an advocate and therefore is not eligible for applying to any post in Higher Judicial Service requiring the condition of practicing advocate.Justice SaumitraDayal Singh speaking for a two judges bench has passed the judgment in case titled
Shiv Kumar Pankha vs Hon’ble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad
Case History
The petitioner did his LLB from Banaras Hindu University .He is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi and is working as Law Officer with the SBI. After, he got himself enrolled.with the Bar Council of Delhi, he started practicing in district courts at Rohini and got himself registered as the member of Rohini Bar Association. He practiced as such from 8.10.2010 till 6.10.2014. He took up full time employment on 7.10.2014 with the SBI as Law Officer. The petitioner never surrendered his license to practice and it was never suspended despite information of employment to the Bar Council. During his employment with the SBI he appeared in courts and provided legal assistance to senior counsel of the Bank at Allahabad and Lucknow in the matters relating to Bank. He had appeared on behalf of the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal/Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In short, he regularly acted/pleaded before the various courts/tribunals on behalf of the Bank while in its service. The guidelines/circulars of the Reserve Bank of India permit the Law Officers of the Bank to participate in legal proceedings before the courts. The petitioner while working as Law Officer with the Bank was not called upon to do any work which may be inconsistent with the legal profession/practice as an advocate. When he applied for the UP Higher Judicial Service Examination, his candidature was not accepted.
It is in the above back-ground that the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction basically claiming that as he was enrolled as an advocate and despite his full time employment he continues to practice law by appearing before the courts, he is eligible for appointment in the UP HJS and that his candidature cannot be rejected merely for the reason that he is in full time employment with the Bank.
Court observations:
In support of the above contention, the petitioner apart from relying upon the pleadings made in the petition placed reliance upon three Judges decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik.
The High Court observed “a question has arisen before us whether a person or an advocate who takes up full time employment with the Bank as Law Officer and in discharge of his duties may be appearing for the employer before the law courts would still continue to be an advocate so as to count the period in service towards his standing as an advocate for selection/appointment to the UP HJS/District Judge”.
LEGALFLAME 