SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(All) 62

Allahbad High Court
G.C.MATHUR,A.K.KIRTY
The State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Bhola Nath Srivastava - Respondent
Decided On : 02/24/1972

Advocates:
Standing Counsel, for Appellant; V.K. Mehrotra, P.C. Srivastava and V.K. Khanna, for Respondents.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 16(1) - APPOINTMENT OF LAW OFFICERS - WHETHER ARTICLE 16(1) IS APPLICABLE - WHETHER APPOINTMENT OF LAW OFFICERS WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 16(1) - VALIDITY OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF LAW OFFICERS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the appointment of law officers by the State Government without issuing an advertisement or notice inviting applications, alleging violation of Article 16(1) of the Constitution. He also challenged the validity of paragraph 4 of the general instructions relating to the appointment of law officers, contending that it conferred arbitrary power on the Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Article 16(1) is applicable to the appointment of law officers as they hold 'offices under the State'. The court further held that the appointment of law officers without issuing an advertisement or notice does not violate Article 16(1) as long as every eligible person has the same opportunity of being considered for the office. The court also upheld the validity of paragraph 4 of the general instructions, holding that it does not confer arbitrary power on the Government but merely provides for consultation with the Advocate-General or other authorities.

Issues: 1. Whether Article 16(1) of the Constitution is applicable to the appointment of law officers. 2. Whether the appointment of law officers without issuing an advertisement or notice violates Article 16(1). 3. Whether paragraph 4 of the general instructions relating to the appointment of law officers is valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 16(1) is applicable to the appointment of law officers as they hold 'offices under the State'. The posts of law officers are subsisting, permanent and substantive positions, exist independently of the incumbent, and are of a more or less public character to which certain duties are attached. 2. The appointment of law officers without issuing an advertisement or notice does not violate Article 16(1) as long as every eligible person has the same opportunity of being considered for the office. Article 16(1) does not require the State to issue an advertisement or notice in every case of public employment. 3. Paragraph 4 of the general instructions relating to the appointment of law officers is valid. It does not confer arbitrary power on the Government but merely provides for consultation with the Advocate-General or other authorities.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of the learned Single Judge were set aside, and the three writ petitions were dismissed.

Judgement

G. C MATHUR, J. :- These three special appeals have been filed by the State Government against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing three writ petitions. All the three writ petitions were filed by Sri Bhola Nath Srivastava, an Advocate of this Court. By one writ petition he challenged the appointment of Sri Rishi Ram as Government Advocate; by the second he challenged the appointment of Sri Prem Shankar Gupta as Deputy Government Advocate; and by the third he challenged the appointments of Sarvsri Girdhar Malaviya, V.P. Goel, T.N. Sinha, S.V. Goswami and S.M. Tripathi as Assistant Government Advocates. The writ petitions have been allowed and the notifications appointing these law officers have been quashed on the ground that the appointments were made in violation of the provisions of Article 16(1) of the Constitution inasmuch as no advertisement or notice was issued, before making the appointments, inviting applications from eligible members of the Bar for the appointments.

2. The general instructions relating to the appointment and tenure of law officers of the State of U.P. are given in Appendix 'B' to the Manual of Rules and Orders relating to the Department of the Legal Remembrancer to Government, U.P. (IV Edition, 1942). By a notification dated June 29, 1968, a new set of general instructions were issued by the Governor, replacing the existing ones given in appendix 'B'. Paragraph I of the general instructions provides:

"Law officers of the State in the High Court, namely, Government Advocate, Additional Government Advocate, Deputy Government Advocates and Assistant Government Advocates on the criminal side, and Chief Standing counsel and Standing counsel on the civil side, are legal practitioners appointed by the State Government to conduct in the High Court such Government litigation as may be assigned to them either generally or specially by Government."

Paragraph II lays down that a legal practitioner to be eligible for appointment as a law officer should have a standing of, at least, five years as an Advocate of the High Court. Paragraph III states that no age limits are prescribed for appointments of law officers but appointments shall be made with due regard to physical fitness. Paragraph IV, which is important, reads thus:-

"The Governor may appoint any qualified legal practitioner as a Law Officer and, before making any such appointment, he may, if he thinks fit, take into consideration the views of the Advocate General or of the Chief Justice or any other Judges of the High Court or of any Committee that the Governor may constitute for the purpose. All appointments shall be notified in the Official Gazette."Paragraph V provides for the remuneration etc. of the law officers and paragraph VI for their tenure.

3. Sri Rishi Ram was appointed Government Advocate for a period of three years by a notification dated October 30, 1968. By another notification dated November 11, 1971, his term was extended by one year. Sri Prem Shanker Gupta was appointed Deputy Government Advocate by a notification dated March 18, 1971, for a period of three years. The five persons named above were appointed Assistant Government Advocates by a notification dated March 18, 1971, upto February 28, 1972. Admittedly, no advertisements or notices, inviting applications for these appointments, were issued by the State Government. The appointments were, however, made by the State Government after consulting the Advocate-General.

4. The petitioner challenged the appointments on three grounds, namely,

(i) that they were made in violation of Article 16(1) of the Constitution;

(ii) that paragraph IV of the general instructions, under which the appointments were made, offended Article 14 of the Constitution; and

(iii) that the appointments were made mala fide and amounted to nepotism. Since the learned Single Judge decided in favour of the petitioner on the first ground, he did not go into the other two grounds.

5. Two points have been ur












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top