M. H. S. ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Ramachander Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4, none having appeared for Respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE petitioners 3 in number are practising Advocates of standing and were appointed as Standing Counsel to the Religious Charitable Institutions and Endowments by the 1st respondent herein in its Order in G. O. Rt. No. 429, dated 31-10-1994 for a period of three years. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed for the said institutions in Andhra Area, 2nd Petitioner for Telangana area and 3rd petitioner for the Rayalseema Area. The term of the petitioners would expire on 31-10-1997 on completion of three years. However, by G. O. Rt. No. 763, Law (A) Department, dated 28-10-1996, Respondents 2 to 4 have been appointed in the place of the petitioners as Standing Counsel for the said institutions in the respective three regional areas of the State. The petitioners by virtue of the said orders dated 28-10-1996 were requested to hand over all pending files to the newly appointed Standing Counsel. The petitioners have assailed the said order and sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus for declaring the G. O. Rt. No. 763, dated 28-10-1996 appointing respondents 2 to 4 as Standing Counsel as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust.

( 3 ) SRI M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the termination of petitioners appointments by appointing respondents 2 to 4 in their place even before expiry of three years term without assigning any reasons is arbitrary and high handed besides being unfair and unjust. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the change in the ruling party of the State Government is the sole reason for this unjust action and therefore the same is arbitrary and illegal. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, it is a case of en masse termination of appointment of Government Pleaders without assigning any reasons and is therefore arbitrary and liable to be struck down.

( 4 ) SRI S. Ramachander Rao, Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that petitioner No. 3 submitted his resignation and the same was accepted by the State Government in its G. O. Rt. No. 102, dated 10-2-1995 and the 3rd petitioner alongwith certain other Standing counsel who submitted similar resignations were requested to continue in their respective posts till alternative arrangements are made. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by Sri S. Ramachander Rao. Learned Senior counsel that the State by G. O. Rt. No. 86, dated 1-2-1995, in exercise of its powers under paragraph 5 of the Executive Instructions issued in G. O. Ms. No. 57, Law, dated 16-3-1990 terminated the services of the petitioners 1 and 2 by issuing one month s notice and directed that they be continued till new Standing counsel are appointed.

( 5 ) PARAGRAPH 5 of G. O. Ms. No. 57, Law Department, dated 16-3-1990 reads as under:"5. Law Officers shall ordinarily be appointed for a term of three years. However, either party may terminate the engagements by giving one month s notice. "

( 6 ) THE validity of the said paragraph (5) is not questioned and was already upheld by this Court in the decision Vilas Rao vs. State of AP. . Power is thus vested in the Government to terminate the services of Law Officers by resorting to paragraph 5 of G. O. Ms. No 57, Law Department, dated 16-3-1990.

( 7 ) AS noticed above, Government have resorted to the said power by issuing notice of termination by giving one month s notice in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 vide G. O. Rt. No. 86, dated 1-2-1995. The third petitioner s resignation was accepted vide G. O. Rt. No. 102, dated 10-2-1995. The petitioners, however, were allowed to continue until new Standing Counsel were appointed. By impugned G. O. Rt. No. 763, dated 28-10-1996, Respondents 2 to 4 have been appointed as Stan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document