Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOGINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana & another - CWP-303-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 493 (2 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.W.P.No.303 of 2006

Date of Decision : January 30, 2006.

Joginder Singh .... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana & another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Suresh Monga, Senior DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

Vide order dated January 10, 2006, the petitioner was ordered to be provisionally interviewed. It is the admitted position between the parties that the petitioner has since been so interviewed. Claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents only on the ground that since the petitioner was issued an enrolment licence of an advocate on September 10, 1997 by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, therefore, he could not be taken to be practising from August, 1996, as claimed by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact, the petitioner was earlier practising as an apprentice under the then rules formulated by Bar Council, however, the said rules were quashed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. In these circumstances, the petitioner was granted licence of an advocate on September 10, 1997 for practising as an advocate. As per the directions of the Supreme Court of India, his period of apprenticeship was counted towards his practice as an advocate.

Consequently, it has been argued that the petitioner had been practising as an advocate since August, 1996.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was provisionally interviewed, the present writ petition is allowed C.W.P.No.303 of 2006 : 2 :

and it is directed that the candidature of the petitioner shall be duly considered by the respondents along with other candidates, in accordance with law.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

January 30, 2006 ( S.N.AGGARWAL )

monika JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.