# appointment. It should be clearly understood that the object of the above directions is not to provide employment to impecunious members of the Bar, but to get good men for the benefit of the public…

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 129/IVh-10
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1978-11-20
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 129/IVh-10
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/appointment-it-should-be-clearly-understood-that-the-object-of-the-above-163017
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

appointment. It should be clearly understood that the object of the above directions is not to provide employment to impecunious members of the Bar, but to get good men for the benefit of the public and so a District Judge should select men who are likely to do well as Oath Commissioners. Other things being equal, however, a legal practitioner with a

## Text

102
civil courts. The said convenience is very necessary for the lady lawyers also, who are
practicing in a number of judgeships.
Necessary plan and estimate for the proposed work duly scrutinized by the proper
authorities should be sent to the Court expeditiously along with a site plan showing the
site selected for the purpose.
24.
 ENTRY IN COURT PREMISES WITH FIRE ARMS
C.L. No. 129/IVh-10, dated 20th November, 1978
District Judges should ensure strict compliance of Rule 614(4) of G. R. (Civil)
and persons bringing any kind of arms with them are prohibited entry in the court
premises.
G.L. NO. 322/46, dated 25th January, 1913
The Munsarim of each court is responsible for seeing that no person other than an
official of the court or a recognized apprentice enters any office rooms or record room
without the Written permission of the presiding officer.
25.
MODE OF ADDRESSING PARTIES BY COURT PEONS
G.L. No. 16/VI-c-5, dated 21st September, 1951
Peons when calling out the names of parties and witnesses in a case should use
more respectful language and should prefix the term ―Sri‖ or ―Sarvasri‖, ―Srimati‖ or
―Kumari‖ to the name or names as circumstances may require. They should also make
use of the more respectful term ―hazir hain‖ instead of the term ―hazir hai‖.
26.
 NO COURT DRESS FOR MEMBERS OF PUBLIC
C.L. No. 37/IX-a-23, dated 14th April, 1951
Peons in subordinate courts should not object to members of the public entering
the court room with a cap on. No objection should be taken to the dress worn by any
member of the public attending the courts provided he is decently and properly dressed
having regard to his status in life. Anyone wearing the European headdress must remove
it before entering the courtroom in accordance with European custom.
C.L. No. 53/73, dated 18th June, 1973
Litigants, members of the public and the witnesses should neither be prohibited
from wearing Gandhi cap or any Indian head gear neither while entering a court nor
should they be asked to take it off.
27.
DRESS FOR A.P.P.
C. L.No.42/VIII-b-223, dated 7th April, 1976
It encloses G.O.No. 2312/Eight-Ni-Lo-Aa-2/6(2):74, dated 27th February, 1976
of U.P. Government prescribing, dress for Assistant Public Prosecutor.
While appearing before a Court, the Assistant Public Prosecutors are required to
put on a buttoned up black coat or black coat with a black tie.
103
28.
ABBREVIATED FORM OF CIVIL JUDGE
G.L. NO. 20/97-4(4), dated 31st March, 1937
The abbreviated form of ―Civil Judge‖ or ―Additional Civil Judge‖ should be
―Civil J.‖ or ―Addl. Civil J.‖ In no case should the abbreviation ―C.J. or A.C.J.‖ be used
as they are the recognized abbreviated forms of ―Chief Justice‖ and ―Acting Chief
Justice‖
29.
 INTIMATION OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS
C.L. No. 20/Admn. (E), dated 10th May, 1985
The District Judges are requested to intimate to the Court their present telephone
numbers (office and residence both) and also the telephone numbers of Additional
District Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrate of their district and also the changes which
may take place from time to time in the telephone numbers in future.
30.
OATH COMMISSIONERS
(i)) Appointment and removal
G.L. No 11/452(15), dated 9th March, 1932 as modified and amended by
C.L. No. 65/45, dated 8th December, 1934,
C.L. No. 76/45-22, (3) dated 3rd September, 1936,
C.L. No. 85/45(8), dated 10th October, 1936 and
C.L. No. 6/45-5(1), dated 22nd January, 1937
It is discretionary for District Judges to have the verification of affidavits done by
Munsarims only or to appoint legal practitioner for this purpose. The convenience of
litigants, however, is a matter which should be considered.
It is undesirable that the nomination of legal practitioners for appointment as
Oath Commissioners should be made by the Bar Association, as the obligation of making
proper appointments rests with the District Judge and if he feels that owing to his being
new to the district he requires assistance from others for making proper appointment he
should obtain such assistance from Munsifs and Civil Judges who may be in a better
position to make the necessary nomination. So long as a legal practitioner who has been
appointed an Oath Commissioner is doing his work well, he should not be removed from
the list but he would be subject to removal if his income at the Bar makes it desirable that
he should withdraw his name in favour of a junior.
A District Judge has the power to strike off the name of an Oath Commissioner at
his own instance. He need not wait till the Oath Commissioner asks for the removal of
his name. The term of appointment of Oath Commissioner should be limited to a period
of three years only. In special cases a retiring Oath Commissioner would be eligible for
re-appointment.
It should be clearly understood that the object of the above directions is not to
provide employment to impecunious members of the Bar, but to get good men for the
benefit of the public and so a District Judge should select men who are likely to do well
as Oath Commissioners. Other things being equal, however, a legal practitioner with a