- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being heard finally at the admission stage.
(2.) IN District Raebareli multi storey 50 chambers have been constructed in the Civil Court campus for the allotment to the lawyers with regard to professional use. A notice/guideline has been circulated by the District Judge, Raebareli, which is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition laying down criteria for allotment of chambers. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition Nos. 4 and 5 of the impugned notice which is reproduced as under: JUDGEMENT_865_ADJ1_2011Image1.jpg The submission of the petitioner's counsel while assailing the impugned condition is that allotment of chambers only in favour of Advocates who have more than 20 years of practice at Bar is not fair and just. Such persons will be allottee with right to accommodate 4 to 15 junior lawyers in their chambers. The entire right has been given to Senior Advocate to whom a chamber may be allotted to accommodate 4 or more persons. According to petitioner's counsel such action on the part of District Judge is arbitrary as well as discriminatory. Every member of the Bar has got right to claim allotment of chambers and undue advantage or preference cannot be given to Senior Advocates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Shanker Tripathi and others v. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, 2007(25) LCD 1266, in which one of us (Justice D.P. Singh) was the member wherein the identical controversy had cropped up in the Lucknow Bench of High Court with regard to allotment of chambers. The Court held that the allotment of chambers cannot be done arbitrarily and discretion must be exercised by the competent authority in just and fair manner in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While relying upon the Apex Court decision in the case of D.S. Nakara v. U.O.I., 1983 (1) SCC 304, the Bench held that the classification must satisfy the twin test to the effect that the classification be founded on intelligible differentia and must have rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. It appears that the District Judge was not justified in granting exclusive preference to the Advocates having 20 years or more practice at Bar. Such classification seems to be arbitrary and does not fulfill the twin test postulated by the D. S. Nakara v. U. O. I. (Supra) relied upon in the case of Vijay Shanker Tripathi and others (Supra). The decision could have been taken to make the Senior Advocate as the chief allottee and juniors as co-allottee, that too should have been done after considering the applications submitted by all the members of Bar in terms of guideline circulated for the purpose.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submits that the guidelines have been framed in terms of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Shanker Tripathi and others (Supra) but it does not seem to be correct. In the case of Vijay Shanker Tripathi and others (Supra) in para 42, this Court held as under : 42. It is not necessary to discuss the other cases relied upon by the petitioner's counsel in view of discussion made hereinabove. So far as the representation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward candidates are concerned, their cases should have been considered alongwith others on merit on the basis of pre-framed guidelines. Advocates as a whole constitute a class and possess autonomy under Advocates' Act. It is a competitive field where everyone commands respect because of knowledge and ability. Possession of chamber is pre-requisite for the smooth functioning and discharge of duty by an advocate. In the absence of a chamber lawyer faces unlimited problems. It is a necessity to meet out the professional requirement. Accordingly, every candidate who is the member of profession of law and practising in this Court has got right to be considered for allocation of chamber and for that purpose it is necessary that appropriate reasonable guidelines should be framed so that it may appear that justice have been done to them. For the purpose of framing of guidelines, the chamber allotment rules governing the allotment in Supreme Court and other High Courts may be taken into consideration to meet out the procedural requirement. Thus, it is obvious that the Division Bench opined that every member of the profession should be given a chance in allocation of chambers and exclusive right or privilege cannot be given to a particular section. Of course, keeping in view the fact that the number of chambers available with the District Judge will not be sufficient to accommodate all the lawyers practicing in Raebareli reasonable decision may be taken formulating criteria as has been done while framing guidelines by this Court at Lucknow or guidance may be taken with regard to procedure adopted for allotment of the chambers in Supreme Court. Juniors must be accommodated in the chambers as co-allottee alongwith Senior Advocates instead of giving exclusive right to senior to choose Juniors numbering from 4 to 15. While choosing juniors the District Judge may also lay down criteria depending upon the engagement of junior lawyers in professional matters. He may make a request for guidelines prepared by this Court and in consequence thereof Registrar shall provide the guidelines with regard to allocation of chambers by this Court at Lucknow Bench.;