IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1717 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28294/2011 Dated 02/11/2011 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ---------------------------- N.JAYALAL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O NAKULAN, VALIYAVILAKOM VAKKAM, TRIVANDRUM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADVOCATE CLERK, NO.3, ANCHORAGE, PALLIYIL LANE, FORESHORE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682016. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682031. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM (THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF PLEADERS'CLERK). BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1717 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE - A1 : CERTIFIED COPIES OF VAKKALATHS DATED 14.01.2008, 10.01,2009, 28.05.2009, 18.8.2009, 16.11.2009, 18.12.2009 AND15.02.2010 FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN DIFFERENT CASES IN DIFFERENT COURTS AT ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1717 OF 2011 and I.A. No. 899 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant herein was an advocate clerk working under a particular advocate at Thiruvananthapuram. 2. In the writ petition the appellant claims that his card was not renewed subsequent to 2007. According to him, the reason for not renewing his registration card under Pleader's Clerks Rules was, his intention to shift his work to Ernakulam. However, he could not continue his work at Ernakulam, therefore he went back and applied for the renewal of the registration card held by him, which came to be rejected by the District Judge concerned as per Ext.P2. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 2 and 3 has clarified why his registration card cannot be renewed. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the learned Single Judge is W.A. No. 1717 of 2011 -:2:- to the effect that the original card was not surrendered at the time of leaving Thiruvananthapuram, as it was misplaced and therefore he was not in a position to place his registration card, which had expired in 2007. The learned Judge made a specific observation that there was no averment as such in the application submitted to the District Judge that his card was misplaced. Hence the learned Judge rejected the explanation offered by him. Placing reliance on Rule 7(2) of the Pleader's Clerks Rules, the learned Judge opined that in the absence of the registration card, which has to be renewed within the time specified therein, no such renewal of the earlier card could be given to him, hence the writ petition came to be dismissed. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner/appellant to approach the concerned District Judge for obtaining a new registration card. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, unlike in Indian Legal Practitioners Rules there is no provision how the registration card would come to an end in the present W.A. No. 1717 of 2011 -:3:- Rules. According to him, Rule 8 gives an indication when the registration comes to an end. As it is not a case of death, retirement, discharge or dismissal of a registered clerk, the registration number given to him irrespective of the misplacement of the registration card would continue. Therefore, the renewal ought to have been done. 4. We have gone through the abovementioned Rules. For the purpose of considering this appeal the definition of a 'registered clerk' would be relevant, which reads as under: ““Registered clerk” means a clerk employed by a Pleader and permitted as such to have access to the Court which his employer is authorised to practice and to the officers attached thereto.” Similarly, Rule 7 especially, paragraph 2 of Rule 7 is relevant for the present case, which reads as under: “The card shall be forwarded to the District Judge for renewal so as to reach him on or before the 15th day of December each year, by the Pleader under whom the registered clerk is working, through the Judge or Magistrate presiding in th Court in which the Pleader ordinarily practices.” So far as Rule 8 is concerned, there are two parts and the relevant part is first part. However, to understand the entire W.A. No. 1717 of 2011 -:4:- situation in a better way, it would be better to reproduce entire Rule 8, which reads as under: “8. Whenever a Pleader ceases to employ a registered clerk, he should notify the fact to the District Judge or the Registrar as th case may be. The District Judge or the Registrar will thereupon order the removal of such registered clerk's name from the Register and the cancellation of his card and notify the same. The District Judge will also notify the fact of removal to other civil Courts in the District and to the District magistrates of the district for communication to the subordinate Magistrates in the District. If on the death, retirement, discharge or dismissal of a registered clerk, a pleader wishes to engage another in his place he shall apply to the District Judge or the Registrar for registration. He shall be entitled to look into the register to satisfy himself whether the person seeking his employment had previously been in the employment of another Pleader.” 5. From a reading of the above Rules, it is clear that a person cannot discharge the duties of a clerk under these Rules unless he is permitted by his employer/pleader to discharge such duties as a Pleader's Clerk by representing him, having access to the Court and to the officers attached thereto. If this Rule is read read along with Rule 7, it would mean that when there has to be a permission or authorisation by the employer/pleader indicating W.A. No. 1717 of 2011 -:5:- that a particular person is his clerk and there has to be a register maintained by the concerned District Judge, wherein registration of all the registered clerks have to be maintained. A card will be given under the authorisation of the District Judge by the Sheristedar concerned in the format appended to the Rules. The said card will be an identity card or an authorisation card indicating the registration of the clerk under these Rules so that in the place where his employer/pleader practices as an advocate he would be allowed to enter the concerned offices to represent or discharge the work of a clerk at the offices concerned, i.e., different branches in the Courts where the concerned advocate practices. 6. A reading of the first paragraph of Rule 8 indicates whenever the pleader ceases to employ a registered clerk a duty is casted on him to notify the said fact to the District Judge concerned or Registrar as the case may be so as to remove the name of the registered clerk from the register and cancel the card earlier issued to him. This would indicate that as long as he is attached and permitted by the Pleader employing him, he W.A. No. 1717 of 2011 -:6:- would continue to work as a clerk under the said pleader. Once the pleader removes his service, then the card has to be cancelled by informing the District Judge. hough this Rule does not in so many words envisage what happens when a pleader's clerk voluntarily stops working for a particular pleader or if the said pleader does not inform the concerned District Judge, the entire reading of first part of Rule 8 would indicate once the clerk stops working for a particular pleader, the registration card issued to him authorising him to work with a particular pleader gets cancelled. Apparently in this case, subsequent to 2007, there is no renewal of the card envisaged under second paragraph of Rule 7. Therefore, once the card is not renewed, it pre-supposes that the validity of the registration card comes to an end, if it is not renewed. 7. Apparently, the appellant is not working for the same pleader under whom he was working earlier. In that view of the matter, he has to obtain a different card indicating the name of the pleader under whom he intends to work. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since W.A. No. 1717 of 2011 -:7:- 2007 till today he is working for another advocate at Ernakulam, it would only mean that said clerk is allowed to work without any registration card. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion, the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge that the question of renewing the earlier registration card would not arise is correct. No merit is forthcoming warranting any interference. Even if the renewal of the earlier registration card is given, it can be only for the earlier employer/pleader for whom he was working and not the present pleader. Therefore, even looking from that angle, there is no justification in the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb