The doctrine of pleasure does not permit arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the State, and such actions must comply with principles of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner, who had been entrusted with the Office of the Additional District Government Pleader, at XI Additional District and Session Court, Belagavi, Sitting at Athani, District Belagavi, knocks at the doors of this Court, to challenge the notification dated 29-10-2025, issued by the 2^nd respondent, by which – within a breathless span of 24 hours, the appointment of the petitioner made on 28.10.2025, is rescinded, and the 3^rd respondent is appointed to the said post.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:

On 06-07-2024, a long-standing demand for establishing a Courts of Sessions at Athani, finally crystallized into reality. With this establishment arose, the concomitant need for appointing an Additional District Government Pleader (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Government Pleader’ for short). Pending such appointment, the Government placed the already serving Government Pleader on additional Charge on 19-09-2024.

3. Owing to the necessity of appointment of a regular Government Pleader, the petitioner, a practicing Advocate since 1999, finding himself eligible on all fours, tenders a representation 09-10-2024 bringing to the notice of the second respondent, of his experience and eligibility to be considered, for appointment as Additional District Government Pleader. Upon the representation submitted by the petitioner, it appears, correspondences emerge between the District Judge and the Department of Law and Justice of the Government of Karnataka for finalization of appointment. The series of communications between the two as aforesaid culminates in a notification dated 28-10-2025 appointing the petitioner as Government Pleader for a period of 3 years or until further orders, whichever would be earlier. The petitioner assumes charge and appears in several matters as a Government Pleader on the strength of his appointment on the very same day. When things stood thus, as a bolt from the blue, another Notification surfaces the next morning i.e., on 29-10-2025, abruptly withdrawing his appointment and substituting him with the 3^rd respondent. It is this action that has compelled the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Gangadhar J.M., learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONER:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition, would seek to demonstrate that the 3^rd respondent had not even filed his application. On the application/representation filed by the petitioner, the entire proceedings were drawn up. Drawing up of the proceedings, led to issuance of notification dated 28-10-2025. The 3^rd respondent brings in political influence and gets the appointment of the petitioner withdrawn and gets a Notification issued appointing him as Additional District Government Pleader. The learned counsel submits that the impugned action is on the face of it arbitrary and has to be annulled. The appointment of the petitioner had come about in accordance with law. It cannot be taken away illegally by the impugned Notification. He would submit that the only proceeding drawn was on the date on which the petitioner was appointed and the change of appointment was due to the tippani of the Minister. He would seek to place reliance upon plethora of judgments, all of which would bear consideration in the course of the order, qua their relevance.

RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE – ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL:

6. The learned Additional Advocate General defending the impugned action would submit that there is a distinction between appointment under Rules 26 and 28 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 (‘the Rules’ for short). He would submit tha