Amended service rules undermining the authority of the Advocate General violate constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 165, establishing unreasonable classification and compromising constitutional functions.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

''(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Uttar Pradesh Advocate General and Law Officers Establishment Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India;

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Principal Secretary, Law, Government of U.P., Lucknow from acting as either the appointing authority of the employees of the establishment of the Advocate General or working as the disciplinary authority;

(iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. The impugned amending service rules called the Uttar Pradesh Advocate General and Law Officer Establishment Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2022 govern the service conditions of the employees of the Advocate General and Law Officers establishment. By the impugned service rules the Advocate General has been removed as the appointing authority (hence ceases to be the disciplinary authority) of much of the ministerial staff in the said establishment and simultaneously the said powers have been vested in the Principal Secretary (Law).

3. Shri Krishna Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that :

I. The aforesaid amended service rules are contrary to the provisions of Article 165 of the Constitution of India.

II. The amended service rules are also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as they create an unreasonable classification.

III. The amended service rules will lead to loss of authority of the office of the Advocate General and will adversely impact the functioning of the high office.

IV. The amended service rules do not subserve the purpose sought to be achieved by the State Government.

4. Per contra, Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State contends that :

I. The State is the employer and has every right to frame the service rules.

II. The office of the Advocate General will not be impacted by the aforesaid amendments, inasmuch as, the functions of the Advocate General are not being interfered with.

III. The rules are consistent with Article 14 and no one can question the prerogative of the State to frame service conditions for the benefit of the employees and the departments.

IV. The Advocate General is very busy due to the nature of duties of the office and hence the control of the staff of the Advocate General Office is being vested in the Principal Secretary (Law), State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. The amended service rules are extracted hereunder:

''In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of the Article 348 of the constitution, the Go