IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILASPUR
WP(S) No. ​ ​ of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​ Urwashi Kour & Ors.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ ​ The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

INDEX

SI. No. Particulars Annexure Page No.

1. Synopsis &
List of Dates
and Events.
2. Writ Petition
along with
Affidavit.
3. Application for
Ad-Interim/Ex
-Parte Relief
along with
Affidavit
4. A copy of P/1
notification
dated
19.01.2024
issued by the
Respondent
No. 1.
5. A copy of P/2
amendment
dated
05.07.2024
issued by the
Respondent
No. 1.
6. A copy of P/3
notification
dated
23.12.2024
issued by the
Respondent
No. 2
7. A copy of P/4
interim order
passed by this
Hon’ble Court
dated
 22.01.2025
8. A copy of P/5
interim order
passed by this
Hon’ble Court
dated
17.02.2025
9. A copy of P/6
interim order
passed by this
Hon’ble Court
dated
20.02.2025
10. A copy of P/7
subsequent
amendment
dated
21.02.2025
issued by
Respondent
No. 1.
11. A copy of P/8
interim order
passed by this
Hon’ble Court
 dated
07.04.2025.
12. A copy of final P/9
order passed
by this
Hon’ble Court
dated
27.05.2025.
13. A copy of the P/10
order
specifying the
exam date,
dated
18.07.2025
issued by the
Respondent
No. 2
14. A copy of the P/11
order dated
12.09.2025
issued by the
Respondent
No. 2 to
download the
admit cards
from its
 website.
15. A copy of the P/12
registration
form of a
candidate.
(For
Reference)
16. A copy of the P/13
advertisement
dated
05.08.2024
issued by the
High Court of
Chhattisgarh
for the
DISTRICT
JUDGE
(ENTRY
LEVEL)
EXAMINATIO
N 2023:
DIRECT
RECRUITMEN
T FROM
ADVOCATES
(BAR), bearing
 Advertisement
No. 02/S & A
Cell/2024.
17. Vakalatnama

PLACE: BILASPUR​ ​ ​ MEHUL KUMAR GARG

DATE: ​ ​ ​ ​ COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
WP(S) No. ​ of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​ Urwashi Kour & Ors.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ ​ The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

SYNOPSIS

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is being preferred by the Petitioners against their arbitrary
and unjust exclusion from the ongoing recruitment process for
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), as advertised by
Respondent No. 2: Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
(CGPSC) vide Advertisement No. 04/2024 dated 23.12.2024.
Despite being fully qualified and legally eligible, the Petitioners
law graduates, some of whom are already enrolled as advocates,
while others are serving government employees (as detailed in the
writ petition) have been denied access to their admit cards for the
Preliminary Examination scheduled on 21.09.2025, without any
reason, justification, or communication. The exclusion of the
Petitioners is based solely from a temporary and now inoperative
amendment dated 05.07.2024, which had introduced enrolment
as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 as a mandatory
condition for eligibility. This condition, however, was
subsequently withdrawn and superseded by an amendment
dated 21.02.2025, passed on the recommendation of Respondent
No. 3: High Court of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to proceedings in
WPS No. 608 of 2025 (Ms. Vinita Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others). The amendment dated 21.02.2025, by expressly
removing the enrolment condition, restored eligibility to all law
graduates, irrespective of their status as enrolled advocates or
government servants.
The earlier amendment created a constitutionally infirm and
internally contradictory framework: on one hand, it allowed age
relaxation for government servants and required submission of
NOC; on the other, it imposed a mandatory enrolment condition
which government employees cannot legally fulfill under Rule 49
of the Bar Council of India Rules. This irrational classification,
lacking any nexus with the object of judicial recruitment, violated
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Importantly, the
subsequent amendment dated 21.02.2025 is not merely
prospective but must be construed to have retrospective effect, as
it supersedes and nullifies the earlier amendment dated
05.07.2024. The withdrawal of the earlier amendment, prompted
by judicial scrutiny and accepted by the State, has the effect of
curing the defect from inception, and thus the Petitioners’
eligibility must be assessed under the amended rules now in
force.
Moreover, this Hon’ble Court in its final judgment dated
27.05.2025 in WPS No. 608 of 2025, directed Respondent No. 2
to proceed strictly in accordance with law, including the binding
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Judges
Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1184. The Apex Court categorically upheld the
eligibility of fresh law graduates, expressly rejected the need for
any form of bar experience, and clarified that no indirect
disqualifications should frustrate that mandate.
Despite this clear legal position, Respondent No. 2 has failed to
apply the subsequent amendment and binding precedents,
thereby wrongfully excluding the Petitioners by denying them
access to their admit cards. This inaction is arbitrary,
discriminatory, and ultra vires, causing grave and irreparable
prejudice to the Petitioners, whose only fault is that they relied
on the law as it stands today. The Petitioners therefore
respectfully seek the urgent intervention of this Hon’ble Court to
declare them eligible for participation in the ongoing recruitment
process, quash the obsolete provisions arising from the
amendment dated 05.07.2024, hold that the amendment dated
21.02.2025 shall apply retrospectively and is binding on all
authorities, and direct Respondent No. 2 to issue admit cards to
the Petitioners forthwith and conduct the examination in
accordance with law, prevailing rules, and binding judicial
decisions.
 LIST OF DATES:
Dates Particulars of Event
19.01.2024 The Respondent No. 1: State Government of
Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs
Department, issued a notification for the
recruitment of 57 posts of Civil Judge (Junior
Division).
05.07.2024 The Respondent No. 1: State Government of
Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs
Department, amended the Chhattisgarh Lower
Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2006
23.12.2024 The Respondent No. 2: CGPSC issued an
advertisement for the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) vide Advertisement No.
04/2024/Exam/Date/23/12/2024.
December In furtherance of the recruitment process online
2024 application forms were rolled out for the purpose
of filling up the notified vacancies.
January Several petitions came to be filed before this
2025 Hon’ble Court challenging the aforementioned
amendment as well as the consequential
advertisement.
22.01.2025 This Hon’ble Court, in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 608/2025),
 was pleased to pass an interim order directing
Respondent No. 2: Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission to extend the last date for
submission of the online application form, and
further requested Respondent No. 3: High Court
of Chhattisgarh to revisit the impugned
amendment.
17.02.2025 In Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others (WPS No. 608/2025), Respondent No. 3:
the High Court of Chhattisgarh submitted that
the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble
Governor and that a decision would be taken
shortly.
20.02.2025 In Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others (WPS No. 608/2025), the Learned
Advocate General for the State submitted that the
matter is still sub judice for consideration of the
recommendations made by Respondent No. 3.
21.02.2025 Subsequently, a rectified amendment was made
by Respondent No. 1: State Government of
Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs
Department amending the Chhattisgarh Lower
Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2006, in accordance with the
submissions made in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 608/2025).
07.04.2025 This Hon’ble Court passed an interim order in
Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Others (WPS No. 608/2025), restraining
Respondent No. 2: CGPSC from proceeding with
the examination until further orders.
A true copy of the interim order dated
22.01.2025 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P-8.
27.05.2025 In its final order in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 608/2025), this
Hon’ble Court directed Respondent No. 2:
(CGPSC) to proceed with the examination in
accordance with law.
18.07.2025 The Respondent No. 2: CGPSC announced the
date of the examination.
09.09.2025 The Respondent No. 2: CGPSC released the
notification allowing candidates to download their
admit cards.
10.09.2025 The Petitioners were unable to access or
download their admit cards.
12.09.2025 Despite several efforts made by the Petitioners to
obtain their admit cards, Respondent No. 2:
CGPSC merely reiterated its earlier notification
dated 09.09.2025, directing candidates to
download the admit cards from its website.
 Hence, the present petition.
​

PLACE: BILASPUR​ ​ ​ MEHUL KUMAR GARG

DATE: ​ ​ ​ ​ COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
WP(S) No. ​ of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​
1.​ Urwashi Kour D/o Late
Maheshwar Singh Kour, Aged
about 30 years, Working as -
Asst. Grade III, CG Education
Department (C.G), R/o Village –
Pandel, Post – Khalari, District –
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
2.​ Yash Ashesha S/o Surendra
Kumar, Aged about 29 years,
Working As- Legal assistant,
Education Department,
Madhepura Bihar. R/o House
No. 101, Ramnagar, Bihta, P.O. &
P.S. – Bihta, District – Patna,
Bihar, Pin – 801103.
3.​ Abhinav Baranwal S/o Amit
Baranwal, Aged about 23 years,
R/o Bundel Khandi, near Ganga
Mandir, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh,
Pin – 231001.
4.​ Prerna Tiwari D/o Pravesh
Kumar Tiwari, Aged about 23
years, R/o Gurdev Palace,
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
5.​ Amit Kumar S/o Satendra
Narayan Singh, Aged about 26
years, R/o Pali Road, Jhabar,
Dipka, Korba, Chhattisgarh.
6.​ Vartika Khantal D/o Ajay Gupta,
Aged about 23 years, R/o BM-1/4
Veerangna Nagar, Jhansi.
7.​ Oshin Singh Solanki D/o Dal
Bahadur Singh Solanki, Aged
about 25 years, R/o Nehru Nagar,
Rewa, Madhya Pradesh.
8.​ Ojaswini Singh Gahlot D/o
Pritam Singh Gahlot,Aged about
24 years, R/o Krishna Nagar,
Rangbari, Kota, Rajasthan.
9.​ Yash Vardhan Tiwari S/o Piyush
Tiwari, Aged about 23 years, R/o
House No. C-104, Shreeji
Vrindavan Colony, Rewa, Madhya
Pradesh.
10.​ Ayushi Basu D/o Gautam
Basu, Aged about 26 years, R/o
A-45, Sant Asaram Nagar,
Phase-1, Bagmuglia, Huzur,
 Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Pin –
462043.
11.​ Naveen Kumar Sharma S/o
Ghanshyam Murari Sharma,
Aged about 24 years, R/o Rewa,
Madhya Pradesh.
12.​ Aniruddha Yadav S/o P. K.
Yadav, Aged about 26 years, R/o
B-199, Mehdauri Colony,
Teliyarganj, Prayagraj, Uttar
Pradesh, Pin – 211004.
13.​ Sneha Sangwan D/o Pardeep
Kumar Sangwan, Aged about —
years, R/o Sanjay Gram, Block C,
opposite Sector 14, Gurugram,
Haryana, Pin – 122001.
14.​ Bhoomija Pandey D/o Anil
Kumar Pandey, Aged about 23
years, R/o T-4, Rishabh
Apartment, Purushottam Vihar,
Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand,
Pin – 249408.
15.​ Garima Yadav D/o Gaya
Dinesh Yadav, Aged about 25
years, R/o Taramandal,
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin –
273016.
16.​ Samidha Karambelkar, D/o
Sandeep Karambelkar, R/o
Parijat Colony, Nehru Nagar,
Bilaspur, (C.G)
17.​ Yatee Solanki D/o Raghvendra
Singh Solanki, Aged about 25
years, R/o H.No. 432, avas vikas
colony, aligarh (U.P.), 202001.
18.​ Lokesh Mahajan S/o Ashok
Mahajan, Aged about 30 years,
R/o Kamal Krishna Parisar,
Trilanga, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh.
19.​ Saloni Jhawar D/o Lalit
Jhawar, Aged about 25 years, R/o
Rameshwar Road, Pardeshi Pura,
Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh.
20.​ Shristi Saraswat D/o Deepak
Saraswat, Aged about 27 years,
R/o Gauthana, Betul, Madhya
Pradesh.
21.​ Devesh Kumar Netam S/o Shiv
Prasad Netam, Aged about 33
years, R/o 114/B, Kalipur,
Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.
22.​ Meenal Shukla, D/o Umesh
Shukla, R/o 368, Scheme no. 51
Indore, (MP).
 VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through

Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs
Department, Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi
Bhawan Mantralay Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar (C.G.)

2. Chhattisgarh Public Service

Commission Through The Secretary
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.)

3. The High Court Of Chhattisgarh

Through The Registrar General, High
Court Premises, Bodri,
District-Bilaspur (C.G.)

BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION UNDER
ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
SEEKING ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S), ORDER(S)
OR DIRECTION(S):

The Petitioners most humbly states as under:

1.​ PARTICULARS OF PETITIONERS:

 For brevity, as stated above in the cause title.

2.​ PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENT:

For brevity, as stated above in the cause title.

3.​ PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE

PETITION IS FILED:
The Petitioners, by way of the present Writ Petition, is not
challenging any single or specific order in isolation but is
aggrieved by the composite and continuing illegality
resulting in the arbitrary denial of access to their admit
cards for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary
Examination scheduled to be held on 21.09.2025, despite
being fully eligible as per the settled principles of law
referred in this petition. The Petitioners, in essence,
impugning all such actions, omissions, and administrative
decisions including the continued reliance on the
amendment dated 05.07.2024 and the impugned
advertisement dated 23.12.2024 that collectively obstruct
and prevent him from participating in the examination
process. This denial is not only contrary to the subsequently
amended rules which no longer require enrollment under
the Advocates Act, 1961, but also violates the express
directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No.
608/2025 (Ms. Vinita Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.),
wherein the Respondent No. 2: CGPSC was directed to
proceed strictly in accordance with law. The Petitioners has
made bona fide attempts to resolve the issue through the
 official online portal and is left with no alternative remedy.
Therefore, the present petition seeks appropriate relief
against the entire set of actions, decisions, and procedural
barriers whether formal orders or tacit administrative
conduct that have culminated in the denial of access to the
admit cards and consequential exclusion from the
examination process, despite the Petitioners meeting all
legal and constitutional eligibility requirements.
4.​ WHETHER CAVEAT FILED, IF YES, WHETHER COPY OF
THE PETITION SUPPLIED TO THE CAVEATOR:

That, to the best of the Petitioners knowledge and belief, no

caveat has been filed by any of the Respondents in relation
to the subject matter of the present Writ Petition, nor has
the Petitioners received any notice or copy of such caveat
application.

5.​ DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED:

The Petitioners state that they have no other efficacious or
alternative remedy available except to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the
Petitioners pertains to the arbitrary and unjust denial of
access to their admit cards for the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Preliminary Examination scheduled on
21.09.2025, despite being legally eligible as per the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All
India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and
 others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184 dated 20.05.2025. The
impugned conduct amounts to administrative inaction
coupled with a violation of the Petitioners fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
and a disregard of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Therefore, the present writ petition is the only
appropriate and efficacious remedy available to the
Petitioners. However, and without prejudice to the aforesaid
submission, it is well settled that a writ court is justified in
entertaining a writ petition even where an alternative
remedy exists, particularly where the petition seeks
enforcement of fundamental rights, or where there is a
violation of the principles of natural justice, or where the
vires of an Act is under challenge. This legal position has
been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8
SCC 1. The same principle was reaffirmed recently by a
three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s Commercial
Steel Company, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 884, and again in M/s
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
5393 of 2010.
6.​ MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH
ANY OTHER COURT OF LAW:
The Petitioners declares that no proceeding on the same
subject matter has been previously instituted, in any court,
authority or tribunal.
7.​ DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE PETITION AND
EXPLANATION THEREFORE:
The Petitioners respectfully submits that there is no delay in
filing the present Writ Petition, as the same has been filed
promptly upon the occurrence of the impugned event,
namely, the Petitioners’s inability to access or download his
admit cards pursuant to the notification dated 09.09.2025,
published on the official website of the Respondent No. 2:
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) and
subsequent notification dated 12.09.2025. The Petitioners
approached this Hon’ble Court without any undue delay, as
soon as it became evident that, despite being eligible, they
were being arbitrarily denied access to participate in the
examination. Furthermore, having regard to the sequence of
events, and the continuing nature of the cause particularly
the ongoing impact of the Respondents’ inaction,
non-compliance with the amended rules, and disregard for
settled principles of law, the grievance raised herein
constitutes a continuing cause of action. Accordingly, the
present Writ Petition has been filed promptly without any
delay.
8.​ FACTS OF THE CASE:
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this Writ Petition are
as under:

8.1 That the Petitioners are law-abiding citizens of India

and are entitled to avail all legal and fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India and applicable
laws. The Petitioners have successfully completed their
graduation in law from duly recognized universities.

8.2 That the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are serving as

government employees in legal capacities; Petitioners No. 3
to 17 are duly enrolled as advocates under the Advocates
Act, 1961 with their respective State Bar Councils; and
Petitioners No. 18 to 22 are law graduates from duly
recognized universities, all of whom are fully qualified and
legally competent to appear in the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Examination as per the prevailing rules and
binding judicial precedents. Considering the urgency of the
matter, the essential particulars of the Petitioners have been
indicated in the cause title for the sake of brevity. However,
any additional details, including specifics of their
appointment or copies of relevant appointment letters, shall
be furnished forthwith or prior to the next date of hearing,
as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court.

8.3 That the Petitioners are eligible in law to apply for and
participate in the recruitment process for the post of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) conducted by Respondent No. 2:
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). The said
recruitment process commenced on 19.01.2024 with the
notification of vacancy and is governed by the Chhattisgarh
Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2006
Rules”). The Petitioners have duly applied pursuant to the
advertisement dated 23.12.2024 and fulfill all eligibility
criteria prescribed under the 2006 Rules, including those
introduced through the recent amendment dated
21.02.2025, which superseded the earlier amendment dated
05.07.2024, as per the recommendation of the Respondent
No. 3: High Court of Chhattisgarh.

8.4 That the Petitioners have been unable to access or

download their admit cards pursuant to the order dated
09.09.2025 and the subsequent order dated 12.09.2025,
both published on the official website of the Respondent No.
2:CGPSC. The sequence of events leading to the filing of the
present Writ Petition is set out briefly and chronologically in
the following paragraphs.

8.5 That Respondent No. 1: State Government of

Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, vide
Order No. “F. No. 779/162/XXI-B/C.G./2024” dated
19.01.2024, issued a notification for the recruitment of 57
vacancies to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). A true
copy of the notification dated 19.01.2024 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1.

8.6 That Respondent No. 1, vide Order No. F.

No.1415/1207,1205,1629/XXI-B/C.G./2024 dated
05.07.2024, has amended the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial
Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
2006. The Petitioners were particularly aggrieved by Clause
(c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. The substituted rule is
reproduced herein:
In the said rules,-
1. For clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 7, the following
clause shall be substituted, namely:-
"(c) Possesses a degree in law of any recognized
University and enrolled as an advocate under the
Advocates Act, 1961 (No. 25 of 1961)."
A true copy of the amendment dated 05.07.2024 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2.

8.7 That Respondent No. 2: CGPSC, issued an

advertisement for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
vide Advertisement No. 04/2024/Exam/Date/23/12/2024,
dated 23.12.2024. The Petitioners were particularly
aggrieved by Clause (3)(iv)(b) of the said advertisement,
which lists one of the essential qualifications as being
enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
However, the advertisement contains a manifest
contradiction: Clause 5(iii) allows for age relaxation for State
Government servants (permanent or temporary), while
Clause 8 requires a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from
applicants employed in any government or private
institution. It is inherently contradictory to require that an
applicant be enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates
Act, 1961, and at the same time be serving in government or
any other employment. A true copy of the advertisement
dated 23.12.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-3.

8.8 That reference may be made to an advertisement issued

by the High Court of Chhattisgarh for the DISTRICT JUDGE
(ENTRY LEVEL) EXAMINATION 2023: DIRECT
RECRUITMENT FROM ADVOCATES (BAR), bearing
Advertisement No. 02/S & A Cell/2024, dated 05.08.2024,
wherein there is no mention whatsoever of any candidate
being employed elsewhere. This is because it is not
permissible to simultaneously be an advocate and an
employee. A true copy of the advertisement dated
05.08.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-13.

8.9 That in furtherance of the recruitment process, online

application forms were released by Respondent No. 2, the
CGPSC. In the application form, candidates were required to
answer either “Yes” or “No” to the question of whether they
are enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961,
and to provide their employment details, if any. A true
copy of the registration form is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE P-12.

8.10 That this Hon’ble Court, in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 608 of 2025, vide
interim order dated 22.01.2025, wherein the validity of the
impugned amendment as well as the condition of enrolment
in the advertisement was challenged, held as follows:
“........Further, we request the respondent-High Court of
Chhattisgarh, to revisit the amendment brought in vide
Annexure P/1, in light of the judgments of the Apex
Court, as aforesaid…..”

A true copy of the interim order dated 22.01.2025 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4.

8.11 That several petitions came to be filed before this

Hon’ble Court on similar issues, challenging the
aforementioned amendment and notification. This Hon’ble
Court, in Pankaj Kumar Bagde vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
WPS No. 656 of 2025, vide common order dated 23.01.2025,
held as follows:
13. Since we have already taken cognizance of the
issue in WPS No.608/2025, which is the subject matter
of the present petitions also, and the similarly situated
candidates are already protected by the interim order
dated 22.01.2025 passed in the said petition as the
same being in rem, no fruitful purpose would be served
if notices are issued to the respondents and the present
petitions are kept pending as the candidature of all
similarly situated candidates are subject to final
outcome of WPS No. 608/2025. Hence, in order to avoid
multiplicity of litigation, these petitions are disposed off
at this stage reserving liberty to the Petitioners(s) to take
 recourse to appropriate forum, as and when occasion
arises.

8.12 That in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh &

Others, WPS No. 608 of 2025, vide order dated 17.02.2025
the Respondent No. 3 submitted:
“.... that the recommendation has already been made to
the State Government and the matter is sub-judice
before the Hon’ble Governor and the decision would be
taken shortly.”

A true copy of the interim order dated 17.02.2025 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-5.

8.13 That in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh &

Others, WPS No. 608 of 2025, vide order dated 20.02.2025,
the Learned Advocate General appearing for the State
submitted:
“.....that the matter is still subjudice before the State for
considering the recommendations made by the High
Court”

A true copy of the interim order dated 20.02.2025 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-6.

8.14 That immediately on the next day following the

hearing, and the submission made by the Learned Advocate
General and the recommendation of Respondent No. 3, a
further amendment was made by Respondent No. 1 in
accordance with the directions of this Hon’ble Court referred
to above. It superseded the earlier impugned amendment by
the Respondent No. 1, vide Order No.
831/500/XXI-B/C.G./25 dated 21.02.2025, to the
Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006.
​ In the said rules,-
For clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 7, the following
clause shall be substituted, namely:-
"(c) Possesses a degree in law of any recognized
University."

A true copy of the amendment dated 21.02.2025 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-7.

8.15 That based on the submissions made by the

Respondents before this Hon’ble Court particularly that they
have deleted the clause of registration, and that as per
the prayer this writ became infructuous and will proceed as
per new rules, this Hon’ble court in Ms. Vinita Yadav Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others, in WPS No. 608 of 2025, in
final order dated 27.05.2025, held as follows:
“3. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 20.05.2025 in the matter of All India
Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and
others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184,
respondent No.2-Chhattisgarh Public Service
 Commission is directed to proceed in accordance with
law and respondent No.1-State Government may also
issue necessary directions in pursuance of the said
judgment.”
“4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall
stand vacated. No cost(s).”

A true copy of the final order dated 27.05.2025 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-9.

8.16 That Respondent No. 2: CGPSC announced the date of

the examination vide Order No. 824/13/Exam/2024, dated
18.07.2025, in which it categorically stated that the
appointment procedure is being initiated in accordance with
the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 608 of 2025, dated
27.05.2025. A true copy of the notification of the exam
date, dated 18.07.2025 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P-10.

8.17 That an announcement/notification was published on

the official website of the Respondent No. 2: CGPSC on
09.09.2025, titled:“CLICK HERE TO VIEW/PRINT ONLINE
ADMIT CARD OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)
PRELIMS EXAM-2024 (09-09-2025)”,which redirects the
candidates, including the present Petitioners, to download
 their admit cards for the preliminary examination scheduled
on 21.09.2025.

8.18 That, to the utter shock and surprise of the

Petitioners, they were unable to view, download, or access
their admit cards for reasons best known to the Respondent
No. 2: CGPSC. Being aggrieved by such inaction, the
Petitioners made every possible efforts to get their admit
cards but to no avail.

8.19 That Respondent No. 2 reiterated its earlier website

notification dated 09.09.2025, by again directing candidates
to download their admit cards from its official website, vide
Order No. 2101/4622/2025/EXAM/1016 dated
12.09.2025. The Petitioners, however, continued to be
denied access. Hence, having no other efficacious or
alternative remedy, the Petitioners are constrained to
approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present Writ
Petition. A true copy of the notification of the exam
date, dated 12.09.2025 is annexed herewith and marked
as ANNEXURE P-11.

9.​ GROUNDS URGED:

9.1 BECAUSE, subsequent to the commencement of the
recruitment process on 19.01.2024, the Respondent No. 1
passed the impugned amendment dated 05.07.2024, and
Respondent No. 2 issued the consequential advertisement
dated 23.12.2024, both of which contain conditions that are
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
These provisions lack any reasonable basis and violate the
principle of intelligible differentia by arbitrarily
discriminating between two classes of law graduates—(a)
those enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, and (b) those
not enrolled under the Advocates Act.Such classification is
wholly artificial, unreasonable, and devoid of any rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the
amendment. It violates petitioners right by unjustly denying
the Petitioners equal opportunity in public employment
based solely on an arbitrary and technical classification.
(Reliance may be placed on the authoritative judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of West Bengal
v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75 and Ajay Hasia v.
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Others AIR 1981 SC 487.) It is
also pertinent to note that a similar contention was raised
before this Hon’ble Court in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State
of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 608 of 2025, in its
order dated 22.01.2025, observed as follows:
“....... In a selection process, the scope of the candidates
for participation should not be narrowed down by
imposing unwarranted conditions rather more
candidates should be allowed to participate so that
better qualified candidates may be selected. A
candidate who is a Law Graduate, whether or not
is enrolled as an Advocate, would hardly make
any difference as he/she will also have to go through
 the same scrutiny which the other candidate, who is
enrolled as an Advocate, has to go. Hence, prima facie,
we are of the view that for the present, the petitioner
shall be permitted to fill up her online form and in case
she fulfills all the other criteria, she may be permitted to
participate in the recruitment process.”

9.2 BECAUSE, the conduct of the Respondent No. 2:

CGPSC in denying the Petitioners their admit cards despite
the removal of the enrollment condition is manifestly
contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. After
the oral submissions made by the Respondent’s wherein
this Hon’ble Court was informed that that they have
deleted the clause of registration and that as per the
prayer this writ became infructuous and will proceed as per
new rules, due to which, this Hon’ble Court, in Ms. Vinita
Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 608 of
2025, in its final order dated 27.05.2025, held as follows:
“3. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 20.05.2025 in the matter of All India
Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and
others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184,
respondent No.2-Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission is directed to proceed in accordance with
law and respondent No.1-State Government may also
issue necessary directions in pursuance of the said
judgment.
4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated. No
cost(s).”

9.3 BECAUSE, Clause (3)(iv)(b) of the impugned

advertisement explicitly prescribes enrolment as an
advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 as one of the
essential qualifications for eligibility. However, this condition
directly conflicts with Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India
Rules, contained in Part VI, Chapter II – Standards of
Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Section VII –
Restriction on Other Employments. Despite this, the
advertisement issued by Respondent No. 2 contains an
inherent and irreconcilable contradiction: Clause 5(iii)
provides age relaxation to State Government servants
(permanent or temporary); and Clause 8 requires a No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from candidates employed in
any government or private institution; Yet, Clause (3)(iv)(b)
mandates that candidates must be enrolled as advocates
under the Advocates Act, 1961 something that Rule 49
expressly prohibits for those in service. This results in a
self-contradictory framework where the advertisement
invites applications from government servants on the one
hand, but disqualifies them on the other by imposing an
eligibility condition they cannot legally fulfill. Such a
stipulation is arbitrary, irrational, and wholly inconsistent
with the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in
public employment.

9.4 BECAUSE, it is directly contradictory to the law

prevailing prior to 20th May 2025, as settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association
and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1184; while referring to its earlier decision in All
India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India &
Others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Third AIJA Case”) categorically held:

“61. This Court accordingly directed all the High Courts

and the State Governments to amend their Rules so as
to enable fresh law graduates who may not even have
a single day's experience in practice as a lawyer
to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial
service. This Court further recommended that a fresh
recruit into the judicial service should be imparted
training of not less than one year, preferably two
years.”

In light of the above, any condition whether direct or

indirect which imposes a requirement of experience at the
Bar, even for a single day, stands in clear violation of the
binding precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India. Accordingly, the impugned amendment dated
05.07.2024 and the consequential advertisement dated
23.12.2024, insofar as they mandate enrolment as an
advocate, are wholly contrary to the authoritative
pronouncements in the Third AIJA Case and the 2025
decision in All India Judges Association, and are therefore
liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and ultra vires.

9.5 BECAUSE, the stand taken by the State Government

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court gives rise to a legitimate
expectation that it would not act in contradiction to its own
submissions before the Hon’ble Court and also any
classification of candidates into two distinct groups must
conform to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. This principle finds clear reaffirmation
in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All
India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and
Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184. In Paragraphs 63 to
84, the Hon’ble apex Court reviewed the recommendations
made by various High Courts regarding the introduction of
experience as a condition for eligibility to judicial service.
These deliberations establish the constitutional threshold of
rationality and justification in framing such conditions.
Strikingly, the conduct of the State Government of
Chhattisgarh reveals an internally inconsistent and
contradictory position. Only the State Government of
Chhattisgarh that opposed such a requirement. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court recorded this position as follows:
 “77. Insofar as the State of Chhattisgarh is concerned,
though the High Court of Chhattisgarh has
recommended reintroduction of a practice of minimum 3
years, it is the Government of Chhattisgarh which
has opposed the same.”
The same State Government, having opposed the
requirement of prior experience before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, has acted arbitrarily and inconsistently by
introducing the condition of enrolment, through the
impugned amendment and advertisement. Such
contradictory conduct undermines administrative fairness,
offends constitutional morality, and renders the impugned
classification violative of Articles 14 and 16.

9.6 BECAUSE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All

India Judges Association (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184)
categorically observed that even candidates who are enrolled
as advocates may lack actual experience, thereby rendering
the condition of mere enrolment arbitrary and unjustified.
This further demonstrates the unreasonableness of a
classification based solely on enrolment. The Hon’ble Court
noted as follows:

“87. Another concern………….It is submitted that a

candidate may not actually practice even for a
single day and may only on the basis of provisional
registration apply for the Civil Judge (Junior Division)
 Examination and this would, in turn, frustrate the very
purpose of providing an experience.”

9.7 BECAUSE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All

India Judges Association(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184),
categorically held as under:

“89……(ix) It is further directed that the said

requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be
applicable in cases where the concerned High Court has
already initiated the selection process for the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this
judgment and shall be applicable only from the next
recruitment process;...
90. Needless to state that all such recruitment processes
which have been kept in abeyance, in view of the
pendency of the present proceedings, shall proceed in
accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the
date of advertisement/notification.”
Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Para 61, Para 89(ix), and
Para 90 it is clear that no condition whether direct or
indirect requiring prior experience can be imposed in the
present recruitment process.

9.8 BECAUSE, the subsequent amendment dated

21.02.2025 was passed by Respondent No. 1 on the
recommendation of Respondent No. 3, pursuant to
proceedings in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
WPS No. 608 of 2025, wherein the validity of the initial
amendment and the eligibility condition imposed in the
advertisement were under challenge. (Reference may be
made to the order dated 22.01.2025: Annexure ___, and the
order dated 20.02.2025: Annexure ___). Notably,
immediately following the hearing held on 20.02.2025, the
Respondent No. 1 issued a fresh amendment on
21.02.2025, which expressly removed the mandatory
requirement of enrolment under the Advocates Act,
1961. This amendment effectively addressed and resolved
all the concerns raised in earlier writ petitions, including
those related to arbitrary classification and denial of equal
opportunity in public employment. As far as eligibility is
concerned, the said amendment superseded the earlier
impugned provision and restored the position in law of
treating all law graduates equally, without any irrational
distinction. Accordingly, this crucial amendment nullifies
any basis for excluding the Petitioners, who now fully meet
the revised and prevailing eligibility criteria.

9.9 BECAUSE, the Respondent No. 2: Chhattisgarh Public

Service Commission (CGPSC) is legally and constitutionally
bound to conduct the examination strictly in accordance
with the law and the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Any notification or advertisement issued by the Respondent
No. 2: CGPSC must conform to and not contradict the rules,
regulations and judgments. It also violates Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, which mandates that the law declared
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all authorities.

9.10 BECAUSE considering the overall factual matrix,

including the pendency and outcome of earlier petitions, the
recommendations of the Hon’ble High Court of
Chhattisgarh, and the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India
and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184, has
not passed any specific order on the merits of the issue
which was already sub judice before this Hon’ble Court with
respect to the eligibility criteria for Civil Judge (Junior
Division) recruitment. Further, in view of the judgment
passed in Ms. Vinita Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS
No. 608 of 2025, and the subsequent amendment dated
21.02.2025, the said amendment must be treated as
binding, operative, and applicable to the current
recruitment process. The said amendment does not
introduce a new framework but rather serves as a necessary
clarification and rectification of the anomalies introduced by
the earlier amendment dated 05.07.2024. It restores the
correct legal position consistent with binding precedents of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the directions issued
in All India Judges Association (supra), Therefore, in the
interest of justice, administrative consistency, and to avoid
multiplicity of litigation, the said amendment must govern
the eligibility criteria for all candidates including the
 Petitioners, and the Respondents must give due effect to it
while conducting the ongoing selection process.

10.​ RELIEF SOUGHT:

In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove,
the Petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioners(s)
from the respondents.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction
quashing Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the
Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, as amended vide
notification dated 05.07.2024, and Clause (3)(iv)(b) of the
advertisement dated 23.12.2024, as being inoperative and
redundant in view of the subsequent amendment dated
21.02.2025; and further declare the same to be ultra vires,
being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India as well as the binding judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association &
Others v. Union of India & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1184.
10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction
directing Respondent No. 2 to explain the reason for the
manifest contradiction in the advertisement dated
23.12.2024, which simultaneously required enrolment as
an advocate while also inviting applications from
government servants—thereby causing undue confusion
and repeated harassment of the Petitioners.
10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction
directing the Respondents to conduct the Civil Judge
(Junior Division) examination strictly in accordance with the
law, the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in All India Judges Association (supra), and all other
relevant legal precedents.
10.5 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
a writ or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction
declaring that the Petitioners and similarly situated
candidates are legally eligible to participate in the selection
process for Civil Judge (Junior Division) as per the law laid
down in All India Judges Association (supra) and in view of
the amendment dated 21.02.2025, and consequently, direct
the Respondents to permit them to appear in the upcoming
examination.
10.6 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief(s), writ(s), or order(s) as deemed fit and
 proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, Petitioners SHALL AS BE DUTY
BOUND WOULD EVER PRAY.

PLACE: BILASPUR​ ​ ​ MEHUL KUMAR GARG

DATE: ​ ​ ​ ​ COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

CERTIFICATE
It is certified that due care has been taken to comply with the
provisions given in the High Court Rules, 2007.

PLACE: BILASPUR​ ​ ​ MEHUL KUMAR GARG

DATE: ​ ​ ​ ​ COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
WP(S) No. ​ ​ of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​ Urwashi Kour & Ors.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ ​ The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT
I, Urwashi Kour & Ors, D/o Late Maheshwar Singh Kour, R/o
Village-Pandel, Post-Khalari, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1.​ That I am the Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of all the petitioners
herein in the above Petition and such I am well conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence
competent to swear this affidavit.
2.​ That I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying Writ Petition and the application for grant of
interim relief, and state that the facts mentioned therein are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. The
annexures annexed thereto are true copies of their
respective originals.
3.​ That the contents of the attached Petition are true to my
personal knowledge on the basis of record.
 DEPONENT​

VERIFICATION
I, Urwashi Kour, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that
the contents of above affidavit from Para Nos. 1 to 3 above are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Verified and Signed on at Bilaspur.

DEPONENT​

​
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
I.A. NO.​ ​ ​ /2025
IN
WP(S) No. of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​ Urwashi Kour & Ors.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ ​ The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF AD-INTERIM
RELIEF/EX-PARTE STAY
The Petitioners respectfully begs to submit as under :-
1.​ The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is being preferred by the Petitioners
owing to the non-availability of their admit cards as per the
notification dated 09.09.2025 by the Respondent No. 2 for
the Preliminary Examination scheduled on 21.09.2025.

2.​ The Petitioners, duly qualified law graduate, has been

denied access to their admit card without any justification.

3.​ That the detailed facts leading to the filing of the instant
Application have been mentioned in complete detail in the
 accompanying Petition and the same are not being repeated
herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity. The
averments, submissions, grounds and contentions raised in
the body of this Petition may be read as part and parcel of
the present Application also.

4.​ That, an affidavit is being filed in support of this

application.

PRAYER

It is therefore prayed that this instant application be allowed

and this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to immediately issue the admit cards to
the petitioners and allow them to appear for the examination
scheduled to be conducted on 21.09.2025 pending the final
disposal of this petition and/or stay the examination scheduled
to be conducted on 21.09.2025, pending the final disposal of this
petition in the interest of justice.

PLACE: BILASPUR​ ​ ​ MEHUL KUMAR GARG

DATE: ​ ​ ​ ​ COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
I.A. NO.​ ​ ​ /2025
IN
WP(S) No. of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​ Urwashi Kour & Ors.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ ​ The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Urwashi Kour & Ors, D/o Late Maheshwar Singh Kour, R/o
Village-Pandel, Post-Khalari, District-Balod, Chhattisgarh, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1.​ That I am the Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of all the petitioners
herein in the above Petition and such I am well conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence
competent to swear this affidavit.
2.​ That the contents of the accompanying ad interim ex parte
stay application has been drafted under my instructions
and I have read and understood the same.
3.​ That the contents of the attached Petition are true to my
personal knowledge on the basis of record.
 DEPONENT​

VERIFICATION
I, Urwashi Kour, the above-named deponent do hereby
verify that the contents of above affidavit from Para Nos. 1 to 3
above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Verified and Signed on at Bilaspur.

DEPONENT​
 VAKALATNAMA
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITIONERS: ​ ​ Urwashi Kour & Ors.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS: ​ ​ The State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

KNOW ALL to whom these presents shall come that I, Urwashi

Kour, the above named Petitioner No. 1 on behalf of all the
petitioners, do hereby appoint: GOUTAM KHETRAPAL AND
MEHUL KUMAR GARG (hereinafter called as “Advocates”) to be
my/our Advocates to appear, act, file, conduct on my/our behalf
in the aforesaid case and all proceedings arising therefrom and to
do all acts necessary in connection therewith, such as to file
petitions, affidavits, compromises, statements and exhibits or
other documents, to deposit money in the court and to apply for
and issue of summons, notices, writs and other processes as may
be deemed necessary or expedient and also to withdraw money
from the court or receive payments on my/our behalf and
generally to act for me/us in the above mentioned matter. The
said Advocates are not bound to appear at every hearing
themselves and if any fee remains unpaid on any hearing my/our
said Advocates may at their discretion decline to act or appear at
all. They are hereby also authorized and empowered in their
discretion to engage, appoint and instruct any other counsel on
my/our behalf whenever he/they think fit, and I/we hereby ratify
and confirm all his/their acts done on my/our behalf, by virtue of
these presents or according to usual practice in such matters.
Engaged on the above terms and accepted subject to the above
condition.

This Vakalatnama is executed this day of 2025.

MEHUL KUMAR GARG​ ​ ​ GOUTAM KHETRAPAL

(CG/1208/2021)​ ​ ​

PETITIONER No.
1