Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has invoked the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to put in place an institutional mechanism to select Law Officers and Panel Advocates of the State and Public Prosecutors, Additional/Assistant Public Prosecutors strictly on merit through an impartial/transparent process.

3. The petitioner asserts that Law Officers including Panel Advocates and Public Prosecutors constitute an essential cog in the wheel of the justice delivery system of India and such Advocates provide assistance to the Courts and Tribunals on behalf of the State. The State being a litigant in large number of cases of various and varied nature, its lawyers or Law Officers also have to be men of competence with sound knowledge of certain branches of law. It is pointed out that though Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011 has been published on 31st of March, 2011 but large numbers of Law Officers have been appointed without following a transparent merit based impartial procedure.

4. One may make reference to a recent Supreme Court judgment reported as State of Punjab and another Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another, (2016) 6 SCC 1 wherein, certain directions have been issued in respect of appointment of Government Advocates and Public Prosecutors to represent the State at the High Court and District Court level. Though the said judgment pertains to the appointment of Law Officers in the State of Punjab and Haryana but it was observed that other States will do well to reform their system of selection and appointment to make the same more transparent, fair and objective.

5. The litigation policy (Annexure-2) did contemplate constitution of a Screening Committee for constitution of Panels for appointment of Law Officers in the Supreme Court and High Court which reads as under:-

“3.2 Screening Committees for constitution of Panels for appointment of the Law Officers in the Supreme Court and High Court will be introduced to assess the skills and capabilities of people who are desirous of being on Government Panels before their inclusion on the panel. The Screening Committee will include the Law Minister as Chairman of the Screening Committee, with the Advocate General and Law Secretary as members. Similarly a Screening Committee will be constituted for appointment of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors including Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the District as per the procedure laid down in the relevant law, i.e. Practice and Procedure (P.P.) Manual and Cr.P.C. The Screening Committees will make their recommendations to the Law Department.”

But the said clause in the litigation policy does not satisfy the criteria of transparent, fair and objective appointment process as laid down by the Supreme Court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal’s case (supra). In Brijeshwar Singh Chahal’s case, the Supreme Court framed four questions for determination but two of them are relevant for the present petition as well, such as Question Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) which is reproduced hereunder:-

“(ii) Whether the States of Punjab and Haryana have formulated any scheme, policy, norms or standards for appointing Law Officers.

(iii) Whether appointment of Law Officers by the State Governments need to be made on a fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and objective basis.

(iv) If answer to Questions (i), (ii) and (iii) are found in the negative, what is the way forward?”

6. While examining Question No. (ii), the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the process of appointment is without any scheme, policy and norms. The Court observed as under:-

“17. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the view that even when the appointments are made to offices heavily remunerated from the public exchequer the same can or ought to remain unregulated. That is particularly so when those appointed are expected by the very nature of thei