Appointment Of Govt Law Officers Is A Professional Engagement, Not Public Employment; Writ Petition Against Disengagement Not Maintainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-18

Legal Information & Analysis.

Law Officer Role is a 'Professional Engagement,' Not Public Employment; Termination Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction: AP High Court

AMARAVATI — The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that the appointment of government law officers is a "professional engagement" based on trust and not a "public employment" or a civil post. Consequently, the Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the premature termination of such appointments, ruling that they are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The common order, delivered by Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, clarifies that the constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16 do not apply to these tenure-based professional roles.

---

Case Background

The Court was hearing two separate writ petitions filed by Ch. Chaitanya, an Assistant Government Pleader, and Chinnam Ramakrishna, an Additional Government Pleader. Both were appointed in March 2024 for a three-year term but were disengaged from their services in July 2025 by the State of Andhra Pradesh, approximately 16 months into their tenure.

The disengagement orders cited Instruction No. 9 of G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 06.12.2000, which governs the service conditions of law officers. This clause permits either the government or the law officer to terminate the engagement with one month's notice or by paying one month's honorarium in lieu of notice. The petitioners challenged these orders as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioners' Contentions: The petitioners argued that their sudden disengagement violated the principles of natural justice as they were not issued any prior notice or given an opportunity to be heard. They contended that the state's action was a violation of their rights under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment).

• State's Submissions: The Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petitions. It was argued that the appointment of a law officer is a professional engagement, not a civil post, and the government, as a litigant, has the absolute right to choose its counsel. The state submitted that the termination was carried out in accordance with the governing G.O., which the petitioners had accepted at the time of their appointment.

---

Court's Analysis and Reliance on Precedent

Justice Ramakrishna Prasad framed several key issues, including whether the engagement of a law officer constitutes public employment and if a writ petition is maintainable against their termination.

The Court relied extensively on the three-judge Supreme Court bench decision in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal (2004) , which authoritatively settled the law on this subject. Quoting from the landmark judgment, the High Court reiterated several core principles:

• Nature of Appointment: The role of a government counsel is a professional engagement, not a civil post. The relationship is one of trust and confidence between the client (the State) and the advocate.
• No Right to Appointment or Renewal: An incumbent has no legally enforceable right to be appointed or have their tenure renewed. The choice rests with the government.
• Limited Scope of Judicial Review: While not entirely beyond judicial review, the court's interference in such matters is limited. Review is only permissible if the state's action is wholly arbitrary, defies mandatory legal provisions, or is taken for reasons dehors the statute.

The judgment noted, "The appointment of Public Prosecutors... is a tenure appointment. Public Prosecutors, furthermore, retain the character of legal practitioners for all intent and purport."

The Court also held that since the petitioners had accepted their appointment under the terms of G.O.Ms.No.187, they could not later challenge the disengagement clause within the same government order.

---

Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that the engagement of law officers is not public employment and does not confer the protections available to holders of civil posts. As a result, the writ petitions challenging their disengagement were dismissed as not maintainable.

The court's concluding remarks summarized the findings:

"Engagement of an Advocate by the Government is a professional engagement and does not fall within the domain of public employment. Therefore, such engagement is not amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

However, in a measure of relief, the Court directed that the petitioners would be entitled to receive their honorarium for the period they were engaged (approx. 16 months), provided they file an affidavit confirming they did not violate any other service conditions during that time.