The Calcutta High Court is set to examine a challenge by a senior lawyer questioning the transparency of a recent notification that conferred senior advocate status on 81 lawyers while sidelining others without disclosing marks or evaluation standards. The plea, listed before Justice Krishna Rao, puts the spotlight on whether the High Court’s designation process met constitutional standards of fairness and openness.
The dispute arises from the High Court’s senior advocate designation exercise conducted under the 2023 framework, where over 130 candidates were assessed and interviewed. While a select group was elevated, several applicants, including the petitioner with more than two decades of practice, were neither designated nor given reasons for rejection.
The petitioner claims he had earlier cleared preliminary stages under a prior framework and reapplied in compliance with all rules, only to be placed on a “deferred ” list and later rejected altogether. Central to the challenge is the allegation that neither the evaluation criteria, cut-off marks, nor individual scores were ever disclosed, leaving unsuccessful candidates in the dark about how the selection was made.
The petition contends that the process violated basic constitutional guarantees by introducing an unexplained “deferred list ” not contemplated by the governing rules and by withholding reasons for rejection. It argues that such an opaque approach offends principles of equality and professional fairness, especially when assurances of reconsideration were allegedly not honoured. The plea asserts that “arbitrary deferral, without assigning any reasons or following a transparent process,” undermines legitimate expectations and professional dignity.
The High Court will now consider whether the impugned notification and subsequent rejection letters withstand judicial scrutiny and whether the designation process requires reconsideration under disclosed and uniform criteria.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
