# 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. 20/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1937-03-31
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 20/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/appointment-it-should-be-clearly-understood-that-the-object-of-the-above-163019
- **Pages:** 1

## 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

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