CHENNAI: In the absence of any constitutional or statutory mandate providing for reservation, it will not be possible for the courts to issue writs directing banks to provide for reservation and/or representation to members of SC/ST/OBC communities in empanelment of lawyers, the Madras HC held while setting aside a single judge’s order on the matter.
The first bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed an appeal filed by banks challenging the single judge’s order which directed them to provide for adequate reservation in appointment of lawyers for the institutions.
The bench observed that the expectation of the single judge is appreciable but issuing directions to the banks to provide representation to advocates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities would be ‘beyond the realm of judicial review’.
“The relationship between banks and empanelled lawyers is purely a professional and not that of a master and servant. The lawyers empanelled by banks, during their performance of duty, are not holding any civil post. They are not government servants or government employees. The empanelment of lawyers is at the pleasure of the bank. The sine qua non is that lawyers selected by the bank should be duly qualified, competent and worthy to represent it,” the bench said.
It also pointed out its earlier order that reservation, either vertical or horizontal, need not be provided while appointing government law officers in the case filed by VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan, seeking provision of reservation in the appointment of government law officers.
Saying that the relationship between advocates and client is uberima fides -- one of active confidence and trust -- the bench noted that it is the obligation and duty of the banks to protect public money to its optimum extent and in the best possible manner, mandating them to engage the most proficient, competent and capable persons to represent it. “In empanelling the lawyers, merit ought to be the sole consideration,” the bench said.