SUBIR CHOUWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition tiled by Shri Subir Chowdhury, a practising Advocate of the Judges Court at Alipore raises a question of some Constitutional Importance affecting the selection and appointment of Judges in the High Court. The petitioner's grievance is that the Advocates practising in the District Courts of West Bengal and who possess the requisite qualification as stipulated in Sub-clause (2) of Article 217 of the Constitution to be appointed as High Court Judges, are never considered for such appointment, and as such the fundamental rights guaranteed to such Advocates under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution have been violated.

(2.) At the very inception the question of maintainability of this Writ Petition has to be gone into as this question has been mooted by Mr. D. P. Wadhwa appearing on behalf of the Union of India and by the learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal.

(3.) At the time of praying for a Rule Nisi as well as in the course of hearing of the Writ Petition Shri Chowdhury made it clear that he was not an aspirant for the post of a High Court Judge but he was espousing the cause of the Advocates who practise in the District Courts of West Bengal. No Particular Advocate can come before this Court and say that he has a constitutional or legal right to be considered for appointment as a High Court Judge. On the other hand, if an Advocate practising in a District Court raises a question on behalf of the District Courts' Advocates as a class that although some of them may possess the requisite constitutional qualification for being appointed as a High Court Judge, appointments to the High Court from the Bar have till now been the sole monopoly of the Advocates practising in this High Court, the question can certainly be gone into by this High Court in the exercise of its powers under the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction.