Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Nanda vs Orissa Public Service Commission And ... on 11 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2003(I)OLR504
Author: A.S. Naidu
Bench: A.S. Naidu
ORDER A.S. Naidu, J.
1. Heard Sri S.S. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P.S.C.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner passed 3- years LL.B. course from Utkal University in the year 1996 and according to the prevailing practice, he enrolled himself as a trainee from 10th October, 1996. After completion of the training, he enrolled as an advocate on 30th September, 1997 and continuing as practising advocate from the said date. These facts go uncontroverted by all the authorities. An advertisement bearing No. 10/99-2000 was issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission inviting applications to take part in the competitive examination conducted by the Orissa Public Service Commission under the provisions of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 for recruitment to Orissa Judicial Service (Class-II) posts. Clause-5 of the said advertisement specifically provided that a candidate is to be an advocate having practice at Bar for atleast 3 years as on the last date fixed for receiving application. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the O.P.S.C. solely on the ground that he was enrolled as an advocate on 30th September, 1997 and thus has not completed 3 years as on 11.10.1999. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner has approached the portals of this Court.
3. The only question involved in the present writ application is as to whether the period of training during pre-enrolled stage is to be included while determining the length of practice at the Bar. To decide the said controversy, a reference is made to the letter issued by the Bar Council of India dated 15.12.1998. The said letter reads as follows :
"The date of seniority will be determined by the Enrolment Committee on successful completion of Training and that shall be endorsed on the enrolment certificate of such advocate. An entry in the relevant enrolment register will also be made to that effect. The following endorsement may be made in the enrolment certificate".
"period of training from ... to ... is to be treated as legal practice and he/she is deemed to be advocate for all intent and purposes of the Advocates Act, 1961".
4. Relying upon the said communication, the Orissa State Bar Council had intimated the Secretary of the Orissa Public Service Commission by letter dated 3.9.1999 that in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court pre-enrolment training has been abolished and the date of joining of a candidate for pre-enrolment training is being treated as date of joining at bar as advocate.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Bar Council relying upon the intimation of the Bar Council of India admitted the fact that pre-enrolment training is to be treated as date of joining at the Bar by an advocate.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Orissa Public Service Commission, a stand has been taken that as the District and Sessions Judge has not issued any experience certificate taking the aforesaid period into consideration, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. This fact, however, is disputed by the petitioner relying upon the experience certificate issued by the District and Sessions Judge dated 30.9.1999, Annexure-3.
7. Be that as it may, in view of the clear direction issued by the Bar Council of India in consonance with the decision of the apex Court. I have no iota of doubt that the order of rejection passed by the O.P.S.C. is not sustainable in law. It is further made clear that the period of pre-enrolment training, so far as the petitioner is concerned is to be taken into consideration and the same should be treated as date of joining of the petitioner at the Bar. Admittedly, the petitioner got himself enrolled on 10.10.1996 and thus by 11th Oct. 1999, he completed the required period prescribed under Clause-5 of the advertisement and was otherwise satisfied the eligibility criteria fixed by the O.P.S.C.
8. It appears that by virtue of the order dated 15.7.2000, the petitioner has already appeared at the examination in question. However, his answer papers have not been corrected. I, therefore, direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to treat the application filed by the petitioner to be valid one and complete all other paraphernalia within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. It is needless to say that other consequences will follow.
9. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
10. Requisites for communication of this order along with a copy of the writ application to opposite party No. 1 shall be filed within a period of one week.
11. Urgent certified copy be granted, on proper application and only after filing of requisites.