Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held a law student’s internship cannot be equated with post-enrolment practice would blur the distinction between professional experience and academic training. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the plea of advocate Ujwal Ghai seeking directions against the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) for including his name in the list of shortlisted candidates for the interview of empanelment for the “Jail Visiting Panel”.

On June 7, 2024, DHCLSC rolled out an advertisement for the empanelment of Advocates and Mediators for the period starting from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2027. Ujwal registered for the online application but discovered he was not mentioned in the final list. Therefore, he sought information from DHCLSC regarding the same and found out that he did not meet the 3-year experience requirement. 

Ujwal contended that the exclusion of his name was ‘arbitrary and inconsistent with the prescribed norms’. He referred to regulation 8(3) of National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010, and asserted that the term “ordinarily,” does not impose a rigid, inflexible mandate but rather allows for discretion. It was contended that the provision allowed for employment of candidates with less than 3 years of experience.

Ujwal also contended that his internship period of 6 months should also be factored into the total experience. He contended that an internship done before enrollment should be treated as an apprenticeship under legal terminology. 

The court accepted Ujwal’s interpretation noting that “The regulation permits exceptions, allowing for the empanelment of legal practitioners with less than three years of experience, but this is intended to be an exercise of discretion rather than a mandatory rule”. 

However, the court observed that the term ordinarily does not imply that the requirement can be discarded but rather sets a general standard with deviations permitted only in exceptional cases. 

“While it is true that the Monitoring Committee of the DHCLSC has the discretion to consider candidates who may not strictly fulfil this criterion, such discretion was not exercised in favour of the Petitioner. The decision on whether to relax the experience requirement lies solely within the purview of the Committee”, the court highlighted. The court, thus, dismissed the petition. 

For Respondents: Advocates Harsh Prabhakar, Dhruv Chaudhry, Eshita Pallavi and Adeeb Ahmad
Case Title: Ujwal Ghai v DHCLSC (2024:DHC:7871)