Kamal Husasain vs Chairman PSC and Others

R.C. Gandhi, J.—The petitioner seeks to quash Order No. PSC/Ex-2001/KCS (Judicial) 107 dated 21st May, 2002 whereby the

candidature of the petitioner seeking consideration for selection to the post of Munsiff, KCS (Judicial) has been rejected by the Public Service

Commission, on the ground that the petitioner is not having three years actual practice at the Bar.

The Public Service Commission issued notification vide advertisement Notice No. PSC/Ex-200/64 dated 4.12.2001 for Fifty posts of Munsiffs.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his application Form, seeking such consideration. On scrutiny of the application form, the Public Service

Commission rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner is not having experience of three years of actual practice at the Bar. The

advertisement notice prescribes that a candidate desirous to apply for the post of Munsiff must possess a Bachelor Degree coupled with three

years actual practice at the Bar as per the guidelines issued by the High Court, on the date on which he submits his application form as per

guidelines issued by the High court.

The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner possesses three years actual practice at the Bar and the rejection of his

application form by the Public Service Commission is arbitrary. In support of his plea, he has relied upon the evidence annexed with the petition,

which is a of letter dated 11.2.1999, whereby the High Court has sought the consent of Advocate Mr. Lal Hussain practising at District Court,

Poonch to be the guide of the Petitioner to impart him training as required by the Bar counsel of India Training Rules, 1995. The consent was

obtained and thereafter the petitioner was enrolled as trainee on 17. 2. 1999 and conveyed to the petitioner that Mr. Lal Hussain, Advocate has

been approved as his guide to impart hm training. Advocate's License was issued to the petitioner on 24.4.1999 provisionally. On this evidence,

the petitioner asserts that from 11.2.1999, his actual period of practice at the Bar should be counted. It is also stated that the file was put up by the

clerk on 9.2.1999 before the Deputy Registrar, therefore, it should be counted from 9.2.1999. In support of his plea, he has relied upon the

Judgement of Supreme Court in case V. Sudeer Vs. Bar Council of India and Another, . Para 15 is relevant. For the purpose of facility, relevant

portion is extracted below:-

...The said Rule 2, as amended up to 19th July, 1998 further reads that: ""However, while undergoing training, the trainees shall be enrolled

provisionally as ""Trainee Advocates"" after approval of name of their guides by the State Bar Council and the State Bar Council shall issue identity

card to said provisionally enrolled ""Trainee Advocates"" for their identification"". Detailed procedure has been laid down how a trainee advocate has

to function during the period of training. Such candidate has to maintain two types of diaries as approved by the State bar council -- One for the

work in Courts. As per Rule 4 the training period shall commence from the certificate of guide that the candidate is being trained by him. Rule 5

deals with 'qualification of advocate to become guide of such trainees'. Rule 7 deals with 'period of training for a minimum of one year'. Rule 10

provides that : ""No candidate shall engage himself in any employment, profession, business, trade or calling during the course of training in any

manner"". Rule 15 lays successful completion of the training period by providing that he shall be entitled to seniority from that date of provisional

enrollment as trainee under the Rules. Such a trainee advocate as per Rule 15 (b) shall be entitled to appear in the court for seeking adjournments

and to make mentioning on instruction of their guide and shall be under disciplinary control of the State bar council of India. Rule 15-AA provides

that ""in case period of training of a particular candidate is extended by the State Bar Council under Rule 9 on the ground of inadequate training,

said extended period shall not be counted towards seniority"".

This Judgement also does not help the petitioner for the simple reason that the eligibility can be ascertained by mathematical calculation. The

petitioner applied for the post and the last date of receipt of application was Ist February 2002. Those candidates wanted to submit their

application Forms through registered post, the last date of receipt of application Form was 8.2.2002. Counting the actual practice at the Bar from

11.2.1999 till the last date of receipt of application form, the petitioner is not possessing the experience of three years as required and stipulated in

the advertisement notice which is the requirement of eligibility for seeking consideration. The petitioner could not make out a case for admission of

the petition, which fails and is dismissed.