The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government has the power to terminate the engagement of Law Officers, but such termination must be in compliance with the prescribed rules and cannot be arbitrary or illegal.

R.M. Borde, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. Petitioners are functioning as Additional Government Pleaders/ Additional Public Prosecutors/Assistant Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors in the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. According to petitioners, tenure prescribed under their appointment orders has not expired and would come to an end in June, 2016 and thereafter, but for the reason mentioned in the order impugned in this matter, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984, (for short, “Rules of 1984”), their appointment came to be terminated before completion of prescribed tenure.

3. Petitioners claim that they have been appointed in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1984 by the respondents and Notifications, in that regard, have been issued in respect of 14 Law Officers on various dates i.e. 5-10-2013, 9-2-2013, 20-10-2013, 9-6-2014, 5-6-2014, 16-8-2014, etc. According to petitioners, on 13-10-2014, 14 posts of Additional Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors had fallen vacant and as such, Government took a decision to continue the Law Officers until further orders. In the meanwhile, an advertisement came to be issued for making appointment of Law Officers on 13-10-2014, but the process initiated for selecting Law Officers in pursuance to the said advertisement was not pursued.

4. It is contended by petitioners that elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly took place in the month of October, 2014 and there is change in the ruling party, which assumed power. According to petitioners, the newly formed Government has an intention to install Law Officers of their choice by removing present Law Officers en masse working in the High Court as well as in the subordinate Courts. With a view to replace the Law Officers en masse, a notification came to be issued on 13-3-2015, inviting applications from lawyers for making appointments to the posts of Additional Government Pleader/Assistant Government Pleader, Additional Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor, etc. There was no specific order issued before issuance of advertisement terminating appointments of Law Officers who were holding the posts and were yet to complete their tenure prescribed under the appointment orders issued to them.

5. In the advertisement issued on 13-3-2015, a clause was inserted, which has an effect of terminating engagement of Law Officers automatically from the date of issuance of fresh appointment orders in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Government. Clause 7 contained in the said advertisement reads thus :

6. Similar clause is included in the advertisement issued for the purposes of making appointment to the posts of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors, Assistant Government Pleaders/Additional Public Prosecutors in the District and Sessions Courts throughout the State. Important instructions for the candidates are enumerated in clause 7(1), which reads thus :

7. Important instructions for the candidates :- (1) The existing appointments on the respective posts of Law Officers will come to an end automatically on the date of issue of the proposed fresh appointment orders. Hence, the present Law Officers need to apply freshly for the said posts.

7. Petitioners, along with others, who were affected and aggrieved by the advertisement issued by the State Government and more particularly, clause 7(1), which has an effect of automatic termination of engagement of holders of the posts, approached this Court by way of presenting Writ Petition No. 3258 of 2015, which petition, together with other similar petitions, came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 5-5-2015. It was the contention of petitioners, in the aforesaid petitions, that since the Law Offic