BINDU Vs. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking a review of the order dtd. 16/12/2022, whereby the above-captioned petition was rejected on the ground that the issues raised are covered by the decision of this Court in Praveen Garg v. The High Court of Delhi and Ors W.P.(C) No.17131/2022 decided on 15/12/2022.

(2.) The petitioner, in the present case, was enrolled as an advocate in January, 2006. Subsequently, some time in December, 2014, she was selected as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Delhi government, on a contractual basis. The petitioner was selected through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the post of the Examiner of Trademarks (qualifying for the said post on account of two years of practice in law). She discharged her functions as the Examiner of Trademarks during the course of her employment in the said post from 7/8/2017 to 8/2/2019. During the period of her employment as Examiner of Trademarks with the Patent Office, her enrolment as an advocate, with the Bar Council of India was suspended.

(3.) The petitioner was held to be ineligible for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) pursuant to the DHJS Examination, 2022, on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria of seven years of continuous practice as an advocate, on the date preceding the last date of the application, as required in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (hereafter 'the DHJS Rules').