The Delhi High Court has praised junior counsel Ayush Gupta for arguing an AIIMS recruitment matter despite the senior counsel initially being unavailable. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Nivedita Anil Sharma said the case showed how junior lawyers should be prepared to argue matters and seniors should give them the opportunity to do so.
The Court made the observations while dismissing AIIMS’ challenge to a Central Administrative Tribunal order concerning the candidature of Girdhari Lal Jakhar for the post of Driver Ordinary Grade under the OBC-NCL category.
Background
Jakhar had secured 161 marks out of 200 and ranked fifth in the written examination. His candidature was later rejected because the OBC-NCL certificate he produced had not been issued during the period from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, as required under the recruitment advertisement.
AIIMS had subsequently given him 15 days to produce the required certificate. Jakhar submitted a certificate dated 13 September 2022 stating that his OBC-NCL status related to the financial year 2020-21. The institution did not dispute the competence of the issuing authority, the genuineness of the certificate or his OBC-NCL status.
The Tribunal had directed that the certificate be treated as valid, following the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in AIIMS v. Ravi Kumar. AIIMS then approached the High Court challenging that decision.
During the hearing, the Bench specifically appreciated the manner in which Ayush Gupta handled the matter while Anand Varma was appearing elsewhere.
"We see before us, day in and day out, with some dismay, young Counsel merely seeking passovers or adjournments on behalf of arguing Counsel, and confessing ignorance, or at times “lack of instruction”, if we call upon them to address arguments. This case presented a welcome difference. Not only did Mr. Ayush Gupta argue the matter as Mr. Anand Varma was on his legs elsewhere; he argued commendably, and was thoroughly conversant with the file and the record. Equally commendably, we have to note, Mr. Anand Varma, when he did reach midway during arguments, did not “take over” the case, but sat beside Mr. Gupta, merely helping at times when he faltered."
The Bench said this was the approach expected from both senior and junior counsel and recorded its appreciation for both lawyers.
On the recruitment dispute, the Court found that the requirement concerning the certificate’s issuance period was intended to establish the candidate’s OBC-NCL status for the financial year 2020-21. It also noted that obtaining the certificate during the COVID-19 period was difficult and was not entirely within the candidate’s control.
The Court further held that it would be unfair for AIIMS to reject the certificate after having itself granted Jakhar additional time to produce it.
The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed AIIMS’ writ petition.
It directed AIIMS to process Jakhar’s candidature further in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions within eight weeks.
