The Registrar (Examination)

Madhya Pradesh High Court,

Administrative Building, 2nd Floor
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

SUB: Regarding Consideration of Eligibility Of The Applicant For Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial
Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment From Bar Exam, 2017

Sir,

It is most humbly submitted that applicant in reference and response to your letter dated
31/01/2018 vide no.322/Higher Judicial Service (DJ) exam 2017, by way of representation had sent
his reply regarding eligibility in the context of Civil App No.561/2013, Deepak Agrgarwal vs. Keshav
Kaushik & Ors.

By the Notification dated 22/03/2018 (no.335 / Exam/DR HJS / 2017), revised result was uploaded.
In which, result of applicant was kept in the category of ‘Reserve’ till finalisation of their eligibility.

Further, notification No.749/EXAM/DR HJS/2017 dated 07/04/2018 was uploaded on the website of
High Court of MP on 22-03-2018; wherein three candidates have been found eligible and removed
from the category of reserve in the list of revised select and waiting list of MP HJS (District Judge
Entry level)( Direct From Bar),Exam 2017 by the resolution of Hon’ble the Examination–cum-
Selection and Appointment Committee dated 27/03/2018 and approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice
on 04/04/2018. However, the applicant’s position remained in reserve category in the aforesaid
notification.

Sir, the applicant humbly further submits as under:

1. it is pertinent to mention that applicant as per the requirement op MP HJS 2017 and MP HJS
RULES ‘1994 fulfilled all the essential criteria for appointment to the aforesaid post.
Applicant was not working in any service of the State or the Union and was practicing
advocate with 7yrs continuous legal practice on the date of application for the post of MP
HJS 2017.
2. It is noteworthy to mention that applicant has already been completed seven and half yrs (7-
1/2) practice as an advocate before a short gap in UP Judicial Service and has been remained
a practicing advocate on the date of filing application form of aforesaid post.
3. Thus, applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria as provided by Art. 233 as well as the MP HJS
rules and the notification of MP HJS 2017 post.
4. In the communication dated 31/01/2018 reference was made to Deepak Aggrawal vs. Keshav
Kaushik (2013). The relevent part says “This is clear by use of “has been”. The present
perfect continuous tense is used for a position which began at sometime in the past and is
still continuing. Therefore, one of the essential requirements articulated by the above
expression in Article 233(2) is that such person must with requisite period be continuing as
an advocate on the date of application.” The applicant started as an advocate ‘sometime
in the past’ and was “continuing as an advocate on the date of application”. Therefore
applicant fulfills the requirement from even this narrow grammatical interpretation.
Applicant also fulfils the eligibility criterion as per the advertisement and notification
 dated 09/03/2017 for the post that clearly says the candidate ”has practiced as an
advocate for no less than seven years as on 13/04/2017”. The aplicant fulfills this criterion
completely.
5. Furthermore, in a January 23, 2018 order in Dhiraj Mor vs Hon’ble Delhi High Court (SLP No.
14156/2015) Hon’ble SC mentioned Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab and others, AIR
1961 SC 816 and quoted “It is perhaps necessary to add that we must not be understood to
have decided that the expression 'has been' must always mean what learned Counsel for the
appellant says it means according to the strict rules of grammar. It may be seriously
questioned if an organic Constitution must be so narrowly interpreted” The order also
mentioned the instances of wider interpretation of the phrase in Mubarak Mazdoor v. K. K.
Banerji, AIR 1953.
6. In the light of these, the issue raised by your communication dated 31/01/2018 appears to
be, most respectfully, not germane to my candidature, as Deepak Aggrawal case is mostly
concerned with the status of the applicant on the date of application, whether they were
advocate or in the service of the Union or the State. No where question the eligibility of
candidates with seven year of the continuous practice and having the status of an advocate
on the date of application (which is applicant,s status). Even Dhiraj Mor SLP, which
considers the whole gamut of issues pertaining to the the eligibilty criterion is not
questioned about the candidates who are proper advocates at the time of application
because candidates who are advocate at the time of application and have seven years of
continuous practice do not violate the conditions of Art.233.
7. As a candidate who is an advocate with the requisite experience, fulfilling all the criteria
defined by the advertisement and fulfilling the conditions of Art 233, the applicant requests
he may kindly be removed from the ‘reserved’ list and be appointed for the post of his
selection.

With regards

Dated: 11/04/2018

Yours sincerely,

Rahul Singh

S/o Shri Kanishka Kumar Singh

320, Bhopa Road, South

Dist-Muzaffar nagar

UP-251001

Mobile: 9984607562

Email ID-rspundeer007@gmail.com

PS: hard copy has been send by post.