PATITAPABAN PANDA Vs. ORISSA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the grievances raised in the instant writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to the recommendations made by the Permanent Committee with regard to the designation of learned Advocate practicing in Orissa High Court.

(2.) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, submits that after having considered the names of the concerned Advocates, the Permanent Committee recommended some, but did not find 40 persons worthy to be recommended for designation as Senior Advocates.

(3.) It is submitted that the details of these 40 Advocates ought to have been placed before the Full Court and the final call had to be taken by the Full Court, which requirement was not fulfilled in the instant case.