A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court against the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) seeking a direction declaring Clause A(C) of a Notice dated 01-06-2026 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, void ab initio, and unenforceable to the extent that it restricted an eligible candidate from applying to more than one DLSAs panel and provided for summary rejection of multiple applications.
Among other things, the petition also sought another direction permitting the petitioner and all similarly situated eligible candidates to apply against all eligible district-wise and panel-wise vacancies as per the prescribed eligibility criteria and to be considered on merits.
The petitioner averred that Clause A(C) of the impugned notice bore no rational nexus with the eligibility, experience, or merit of a candidate, particularly when DSLSA itself, under Clause A(D), permits an advocate already empanelled elsewhere to relinquish one panel upon selection. The petitioner contended that the blanket prohibition unduly foreclosed eligible candidates from being considered against separate district-wise and panel-wise requirements.
The Court noted that the prescription of qualifications, eligibility conditions, procedure and criteria for selection falls within the domain of the employer or the authority conducting the selection, and that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. It was said that the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authority as to the manner in which the selection process is to be structured.
It was stated that the petitioner’s contention that Clause A(C) was rendered arbitrary by Clause A(D) was without merit as Clause A(D) operated in case of an advocate who was already empanelled with another authority and required such advocate to relinquish the existing panel upon selection under the present process. The Court said that the said provision does not confer a right upon a candidate to submit multiple applications in the present empanelment process.
The Court stated that the existence of a mechanism for dealing with an existing empanelment cannot, by itself, invalidate the separate condition regulating the number of applications that may be submitted in the present selection process. It was said that the condition under Clause A(C) forms part of the procedure devised by DSLSA for empanelment and was uniformly applicable to all eligible candidates, and that the prescription of such conditions falls within the domain of the authority responsible for the empanelment process.
It was noted that the application process was closed on 17-06-2026 and that the empanelment process had progressed in all three DLSAs, which is why no effective relief could be awarded at the present stage. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
