Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, observed "that chamber allotment vacancies should be notified to the members of the Bar in order to provide every eligible lawyer with an equal opportunity to express their interest in them".

The court made the following observations while dismissing a petition moved by one Anita Gupta Sharma challenging the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee of Saket District Courts regarding the re-allotment of a chamber to senior advocates without notifying the general body of lawyers of the said vacancy.

The bench presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula while scrutinizing the present case said, "Two advocates, Respondents No. 4 and 5, were specifically aware of the vacancy and had submitted their representations requesting for exchange with Chamber No. 103. Their prior knowledge suggests a breach of transparency in the allotment process, as the vacancy was not advertised for all eligible members to apply."

While highlighting that transparency in public dealings is of paramount importance, the court however upheld the decision of the the Chamber Allotment Committee, noting that the re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 was done according to the seniority of the advocates and that the petitioner’s request came after the chamber had already been reassigned to the senior advocates.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, appearing for Anita Gupta Sharma, argued before the bench that the Chamber Allotment Committee arbitrarily re-allotted the chamber, while also raising health-related concerns of the petitioner and her husband, who recently suffered a brain stroke. He further submitted that the vacancy was not publicly notified and that the committee bypassed the established procedures for allotment.

Opposing the said claims,  Advocate N. Pradeep Sharma, appearing for the Chamber Allotment Committee argued that the re-allotment process followed the established seniority rules. He noted that the chamber was duly allotted to the senior advocates, Jitender Singh and Rajesh Passey, and that there was no violation of any rules.

In light of the aforementioned, the court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the committee’s decision since the allotment was consistent with the established procedures.

"The Court does not find sufficient reason to set aside the allotment made to Respondents No. 4 and 5. However, the Committee should take due note of the concerns raised in this petition and ensure that future vacancies are transparently notified to all members, to maintain fairness and avoid similar grievances", it added.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee & or