WWW.LIVELAW.

IN
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT :: HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AND
FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

W.P. No. 24806 of 2017

Between:

S.M. Saifullah, S/o. S. M. Kaleem,

Aged: 26 Yrs, Occ: Advocate,
R/o. H.No. 3-6-836, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.
.Petitioner

AND

The Registrar General,

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

Respondent
AFFIDAVIT

I, S.M. Saifullah, S/o. S. M. Kaleem, Aged: 26 Yrs, Occ: Advocate, R/o.

H.No. 3-6-836, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm
and sincerely state on oath as under:-

1. I submit, Im the Petitioner herein as such well acquainted with the

facts of the case as such I depose as under.

2. I submit, the present Writ Petition is filled challenging the Notification

vide., Roc.No.3247/So/2017 Dt. 18-07-2017 issued by the Respondent
herein i.e., Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in
inviting the applications for filing up the post of Law Clerk on contract
basis for a period of one year, to assist the Honble Judges of the High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, as discriminatory in nature and
opposed to principles of natural justice.

3. I submit, the Petitioner herein is a Law Graduate, and has pursued his
Law Degree from Pendekanti, Law College which is affiliated to Osmaina
University in 3 years regular stream, batch of 2012-2015. After obtaining
his Law Degree, the Petitioner enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra
Pradesh as an Advocate and has cleared the All India Bar exam and is
presently practicing before trial courts and this Honble Court.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4. I submit, the Petitioner recently came across the Notification Dt. 18-
07-2017 issued by the Respondent herein, in inviting applications for the
post of Law Clerk on contractual basis to assist the Honble Judges of
this Honble Court and was interested in applying for the same but
however the eligibility criteria embedded to the said notification made the
Petitioner disqualified for applying the said post at threshold.

5. I submit, the said Notification Dt. 18-07-2017 states that the

eligibility, selection and all other conditions relating to such appointment
is covered by the guidelines notified in G.O.Ms.No. 45, LAW(LA, LA &J-
Home Courts-B) Department, Dt. 15-06-2017 issued by the State
Government of Telangana and Gazette Notification No. 13, Dt. 20-03-
2017 issued by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, the conditions
embedded by the both States are in similar and same.

6. I submit, the petitioner hails from Hyderabad city as such has was
governed by the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 45, LAW(LA, LA &J-
Home Courts-B) Department, Dt. 15-06-2017 issued by the Government
of Telangana, for his candidature for appointment as Law Clerk in terms
of the notification Dt. 18-07-2017 issued by the Respondent herein.

7. I submit, in the above mentioned GO the eligibility criteria is

contemplated at Condition No. 5 as under,
5. Eligibility Criteria:
A Candidate will be treated as eligible to be engaged as a Law Clerk
provided he/she satisfied the following criteria:

i. The Candidate should have acquired a Degree in Law from a

recognized University, having studied a 5 year regular stream after
completion of 10+2 years of schooling.
ii. *****
iii. *****
iv. The Candidate should not have enrolled as an Advocate in any of
the State Bar Councils.
Therefore, from the above-mentioned eligibility criteria it is evident that
only Law Graduates who pursued law degree by way of 5 years stream
after completion of 10+2 are eligible, and also a Law Graduate who was
not enrolled with Bar Council is eligible to apply.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
8. I submit, the above mentioned two conditions are discriminatory
towards the Law Graduates who pursued their Legal Education by way of
3 years regular stream, further more putting a condition that an
advocate who enrolled with Bar Council is also in discriminatory nature.

9. I submit, the imparting of Legal Education in India is governed by the

Bar Council of India, and the BCI accords approval to the Universities
and Institutions imparting Legal Education as per the conditions
enumerated under Legal Education Rules, 2008. The said rules prescribe
the syllabus that has to be thought to the students who are studying in 5
years and 3 years stream. The said rules did not make any distinction
between 5 years and 3 years stream in terms of syllabus, professors,
infrastructure and other amenities. It is pertinent to note that neither the
Bar Council of India nor any rules and regulations which are in force had
made a distinction between a Law graduate pursued 3 years or 5 years
stream, however in the present case only graduates from 5 years stream
are made eligible to apply, leaving behind students of 3 years course,
which is nothing but a clear cut discrimination between the students
who completed their Law graduation from 3 years and 5 years, such
discrimination has to be curbed by this Honble Court.

10. I submit another condition that is imposed in eligibility criteria, that

is, that the applicant should not have enrolled with any State Bar
Council, which is another discriminatory condition that was imposed in
the said rules. It is submitted that, a primary duty of a Law Student who
completed his Law Degree is that, he will enroll with Bar Council and will
be appearing before courts, tribunals and other quasi judicial
authorities. However, in the said application form a column is given
stating that if candidate is enrolled as an Advocate in any Bar Council,
the details thereof, whereas Rule no. 12 states as under: -
12. Bar to Practice as Advocate or Taking up Employments:
i. No Law Clerk during the currency of their assignment shall be
entitled to enroll or practice as an Advocate in any Court of Law or
Tribunal or Authority and it will be obligatory for them after
accepting the assignment as Law Clerk to inform the Bar Council
concerned, in writing that he/she shall not practice as an Advocate
as long as he/she continues with the assignment as Law Clerk.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
It is submitted that from the above rule it is made clear that an Advocate
enrolled bared from practicing before courts during the term of Law Clerk
but however in the eligibility criteria it is mentioned contrary to the said
rule as well as the column given in the application form.

11. I submit, imposing such discriminatory conditions at the threshold

for applying for the said Law Clerk post is nothing but a clear violation of
Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution and principles of natural justice. It is
further submitted that classification of candidature for a post will not
depend upon the college, university or in the stream which he had
pursued but depends upon the individual capacity of the candidate. In
the present case disqualifying the Law graduates from applying for the
post of law Clerk is nothing but literally treating them as unqualified,
and such presumption is bad in law. Furthermore, disqualifying
Advocates for applying for the said post is also another type of
discrimination evolved in the present notification. It is pertinent mention
here that an Advocate enrolled with Bar Council and who had appeared
for Bar Council Exam will be more qualified that the Law Graduate who
is not enrolled, however the said conditions imposed in the notification
are cryptic, unreasonable and discriminatory.

12. I further submit that the selection of a candidate should be based

on merit of the candidate/applicant. The Respondent herein has created
irrational classification between 3 years and 5 years law graduates,
which has no nexus with the stated object of the notification i.e. to
render legal assistance to Judges of this Honble Court. This kind of
distinction is bereft of rational differentia and it is unconstitutional.

13. I submit, the eligibility criteria mentioned in the notification are

discriminatory therefore the notification issued by the Respondent herein
for filling up of posts of law clerks to assist the Honble Judge of this
Honble Court are to be reviewed judicially, under these compelling
circumstances the petitioner herein compelled to filed this present writ
petition under Art. 226 of Indian Constitution.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
14. I submit that I have no other alternative and efficacious remedy
except to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of constitution
of India.

15. I submit that I have not filed any Writ or any proceedings are
pending before any Court of law seeking the same relief as prayed for in
this Writ Petition.

For the reasons stated, it is prayed that this Honble Court may be
pleased to issue an order(s) or direction(s) more particularly one in
nature of writ of mandamus in declaring the Notification vide.,
Roc.No.3247/So/2017 Dt. 18-07-2017 issued by the Respondent for
filling post of Law Clerk on contract basis for a period of one year, to
assist the Honble Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of Indian constitution and
consequential set-a-side the said Notification vide.,
Roc.No.3247/So/2017 Dt. 18-07-2017 issued by the Respondent and
pass such other or further orders as this Honble court deems fit and
proper in the circumstance of the case.

It is further prayed that this Honble court maybe pleased to stay all
further proceedings in Notification vide., Roc.No.3247/So/2017 Dt. 18-
07-2017 issued by the Respondent for filling post of Law Clerk on
contract basis for a period of one year, to assist the Honble Judges of the
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and pass such other or further
order as this Honble court deems fit and proper in the circumstance of
the case.

Sworn and signed before me

On this day of July 24, 2017 DEPONENT

Advocate, Hyderabad.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
VERIFICATION

I, S.M. Saifullah, S/o. S. M. Kaleem, Aged:26 Yrs, Occ: Advocate,

R/o. H.No.3-6-836, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad Telangana, do hereby
declare that the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.

Hence verified on this day of July 24, 2017.

Deponent