K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Exemption applications filed in Special Appeal Nos. 158 of 2017 and 155 of 2017 are allowed.

3. These Appeals being connected, we are disposing of the same by the following common judgment.

4. Special Appeal No. 155 of 2017 is filed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The other two Appeals are filed against the judgment rendered in the writ petition itself.

5. The writ petition was filed by a practicing Advocate of this Court. Therein, he sought the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a Writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent Authorities to put in place the Institutional mechanism to select the State law officers and other Panel Advocates of the State and Public Prosecutors in the Hon’ble High Court strictly on merit through an Impartial/Transparent Process.

II. Issue Writ, Order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent no. 1 to comply with the Guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal reported in 2016 SCC Volume 6.”

6. Briefly put, the case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge is as follows:

Petitioner is a bona fide practicing lawyer in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. He is aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondent authorities in the appointment of the State Law Officers in the High Court without following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Punjab another vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & another”, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 1. He further states that question of law sought to be adjudicated in the present petition is the enforcement of guidelines issued in the said judgment to put in place the Institutional Mechanism to select the Law Officers and Panel Advocates of the State and Public Prosecutors, Additional/Assistant Advocate Generals/Government Advocates, Chief Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel and Brief Holders, strictly on merit through an impartial/transparent process. He would allege that petitioner, in particular, and the Advocates of the Bar, in general, are important part of the Justice Delivery System, inasmuch as, the Advocates provide the necessary legal assistance to the Courts on behalf of the State. It is further alleged that the State Government, ever since the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, has never adopted and established the fair and impartial mechanism and mode for the selection and appointment of Panel Advocates and absolutely illegal mode has been resorted for the appointment of Panel Advocates based upon the extraneous consideration and political affinity with the ruling political party in the State. Appointments of Advocates, made to the offices heavily remunerated from the Public Exchequer, should not remain unregulated. There is no Scheme, Policy, Norms or Standards formulated for the appointment of Law Officers. In the grounds, it is stated that the petitioner is filing the writ petition only for fundamental rights envisaged in part III of the Constitution of India and also interested for the betterment and development of the institution. He would allege that, in catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the lawyers had in interest and locus standi to file a petition in the Court against any arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory action of the State. There is a public element attached to it. The State and all the public bodies are the trustees of power vested in them and they are under an obligation to engage the most competent lawyers.

7. Originally, an interim order was passed. Against the same, Appeal was carried and the Appeal was disposed of by relegating the parties to raise all the contentions before the learned Single Judge.

8. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the State. Therein, the State questioned maintainability. It is stated that there was no demand by the petitioner before approachin