JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in S. L. P. Nos. 14525 and 4912 of 1991. This group of appeals raises an important question with regard to the status of the law officers engaged by the State Government to conduct the cases on its behalf in the High Court. Incidentally, questions bearing on the profession of the lawyer, his relationship with his client, and the relationship of the Government and for that matter of all the public bodies with the lawyers they engage for conducting their matters, also fall for consideration.

( 2 ) AT the relevant time, there were 64 law officers working for the U. P. State Government in the High Court of Allahabad including its Lucknow Bench. By an order dated 23-7-1990, the State Government removed 26 of the said law officers. Out of these, 9 law officers had been working for a long time, some of them for more than 15 years. Their continuation as law officers was till further orders. Another 11 officers of the removed officers had been appointed in 1982-83 and they continued to work till the date of their removal without renewal of their term. The remaining six law officers were appointed variously in March and May, 1989 for a period of one year only with a stipulation that they could be removed any time without giving any reason whatsoever. Their term had also not been renewed after the expiry of the initial period of their appointment. There is no dispute that in cases of all these 26 officers and indeed in cases of all the law officers appointed in the High Court, the terms of appointment contained a condition that notwithstanding the period for which they were appointed, they could be removed at any time without giving any reason whatsoever. It appears that before issuance of the aforesaid order of removal dated 23-7-1990, the State Government had issued another order on 26-5-1990 by which the system of engaging Brief Holders in the High Court was abolished with immediate effect. By yet another order of 28-6-1990, the Government had authorised the Legal Remembrancer to appoint Special Counsel for any special matter before the High Court. The order also gave him financial and administrative powers which were earlier exercised by the Chief Standing Counsel and the Public Prosecutor. He was further given power to distribute the work to the various Standing Counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutors.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 23-7-1990, the law officers who were removed from their posts, and aggrieved by the order of 26-5-1990, the then Brief Holders approached the High Court by a writ petition contending, among other things, that their removal was against the principles of natural justice and that they could be removed from their offices only for valid reasons. The High Court accepted the contention of the law officers and by its impugned judgment, quashed the orders removing them from their offices. The High Court also quashed the order dated 26-5-1990 passed by the State Government by which the Government had abolished the system of the engagement of Brief Holders and directed the respondents to continue the said system. The High Court further quashed all the fresh appointments made by the State Government and directed the payment of remuneration to the officers who were removed, from the date of their removal. In the course of the judgment, the High Court has also made observations against the Legal Remembrancer. These appeals are, therefore, preferred by the State as well as those who were newly appointed by the State Government as its law officers.

( 4 ) BEFORE we refer to the contentions advanced on both sides, it would be worthwhile to explain the system which was prevalent in the State for engaging lawyers to attend to the Government work in the High Court and also the role assigned to the Legal Remembrancer vis-a-vis the Government lawyers. Chapter V of the Legal Remembrancers Manual [hereinafter referred to as the manual] deals with the Chief Standing Counsel and the