Govt. Has Freedom To Appoint Counsel Of Its Choice: Telangana HC Upholds GO Discontinuing Services Of Law Officers
The Telangana High Court has upheld the government order passed by the Law Department discontinuing the services of Government Pleaders and Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Additional Government Pleaders (‘Law Officers’) of the District Judiciary appointed during 2021 to 2023.
The Bench of Justice B Vijaysen Reddy held, “In case of an Advocate holding a private brief, the client need not give any reason for withdrawing the vakalat. Thus, it would be unreasonable to deprive the Government of such freedom and discretion to appoint counsel of its choice. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that the Government as a policy decision has decided to disengage services of the Law Officers who were appointed during the previous regime. Though the petitioners allege mala fides against the Government, such allegations are vague, without any material and substance. The appointment/engagement of the petitioners/Law Officers being purely contractual, it cannot be held that there is any illegality in termination of their services in view of proviso to Instruction No.9 of G.O. Ms. No.187. In the opinion of this Court, if the Government does not have freedom to appoint counsel of its choice, it would amount to placing fetters on their decisions and thereby cause interference in the administration”
Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataramana appeared for the Petitioners whereas Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy appeared for the Respondents.
Several Writ Petitions were filed by the persons who were appointed as Law Officers in various Courts of the District Judiciary during the years 2021 to 2023 for a period of three years on payment of monthly honorarium. The Law Department vide a government order discontinued the services of these Law Officers. The GO was challenged by the Petitioners.
It was stated in the impugned GO that as per proviso to Instruction No. 9 of the Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions 2000, the Law Officers were entitled to a one-month honorarium in lieu of notice. Accordingly, the concerned District Collectors were requested to pay a one-month honorarium to the Law Officers and make necessary in-charge arrangements by placing eligible Advocates as in charge of the post for six months or till regular appointments are made by the Government whichever is earlier.
In pursuance of the impugned GO on petitioners and others being discontinued, consequential individual orders have been issued appointing new Law Officers temporarily to various Courts in the District Judiciary.
It was the case of the Law Officers that they were appointed on a tenure post; they could not be discontinued en masse without giving opportunity of hearing; there was no reason to discontinue their services except for change of Government; they have legitimate expectations to continue till the expiry of their tenure; the impugned GO was patently arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution as the services of the Law Officers were discontinued for extraneous consideration for the only reason of change of Government.
While relying on a plethora of judgments, the Court said that the relationship between the Law Officers and the State was purely professional and contractual. Law Officer is not a civil post. It added that the appointment of a Law Officer cannot be equated with that of the Government employment.
It was observed, “Assuming that en masse removal of the petitioners was improper, it needs to be noted that their services were disengaged by a general order directing the District Collectors concerned to pay one month’s honorarium as per proviso to Instruction No.9 of G.O. Ms. No.187. If the general order vide G.O. Rt. No.354 is set aside, nothing prevents the Government to terminate the services of the petitioners by giving individual notices. Thus, even if relief is granted to the petitioners, it would be a mere formality. In such a scenario, the interference by this Court is unwarranted and always avoidable. Thus, there is no merit in these writ petitions.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.
Cause Title: Nagaram Anjaiah & Ors. v. The State of Telangana and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataramana, Advocates Prasad Pulpoody, C. Kalyan Rao and Samala Ravendar.
Respondents: Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy
