2019 Supreme(AP) 353

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Gonuguntla Srikanth and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 16472 of 2019
Decided On : 09-12-2019

Point of law: engagement of services of an Advocate by the State is only the choice of the Government and the Advocate cannot compel the Government to engage his services or continue to engage his services.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 162, 154(1) , 166 and 14 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3(60) - Termination of Service - Assumption of Charge - Memo - Whether State is satisfied with performance of its Counsel or not, is primarily a matter between it and Counsel and extension of licence or permit granted under a statuteto - Whether letter in question was order of Chief Commissioner or not and held as follows - Whether it was an order made by Governor or by someone duly authorised by him in that behalf within Article 154(1) - Even assuming that order did not originate from Go+++vernor personally, it avails State nothing because Governor remains responsible for action of his subordinates taken in his name - Whether petitioners are entitled to continue as Law Officers of various Courts mentioned in table when the State is not inclined to utilize their services as Law Officers - Whether memo issued by respondent No. 2 calling for fresh panels be declared as illegal and arbitrary and whether same is liable to be set-aside –

Finding of the court : Petitioners were appointed as Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in various Courts vide different Government Orders mentioned in table hereinabove and tenure of petitioners is not yet expired, still they are continuing as Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in various Court - engagement of services of these petitioners is purely a professional engagement. The services of these petitioners were not yet terminated, thereby, the question of exercise of arbitrary power in calling for panels by the second respondent from the District Collectors of Krishna and Prakasam Districts does not arise. At the same time, the memo impugned in this writ petition is only an inter-departmental communication and it does not amount to automatic disengagement or termination of the services of the Government Pleaders, or Assistant Government Pleaders in Krishna and Prakasam Districts, as such, the writ petition is premature and thereby, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus, setting aside the impugned Memo - Government may terminate the engagement by paying one month honorarium in lieu of one month's notice. Thus - There was no valid order granting the L2 license to Messrs. Gainda Mall Hem Raj and that in the eye of the law the vacancy arising on the closure of the business by Messrs. Army and Navy Stores still remains unfilled –

Result : Writ Petition dismissed.