Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(Online)(All) 6

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S. N. Dwivedi, M. Chandra, JJ
Triloki Nath Pandey v. State of U. P. and Others
Writ Petition No.4215 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4392 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4214 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4208 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4417 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4479 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4424 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.4500 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.6025 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.6026 of 1990 | Writ Petition No.6027 of 1990 | Writ Petition No. of 1990

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri G.P. Mathur, Sri Ravi Kant
For the Respondents:Advocate General

The District Government Counsel do not hold civil posts or employee status under Article 311; their engagement is contractual, terminable at will without notice, and does not attract constitutional protections.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 and Article 311 - Writ petitions challenging government order terminating appointments of District Government Counsel - The court examined the relationship between the counsel and the State, ruling that District Government Counsel do not hold civil posts as defined under Article 311. The termination of their appointment does not require notice as they are engaged under a professional relationship governed by contract. (Paras 75, 86, 91, 112)

(B) Constitutional Law - Protection under Articles 14 and 16 - The court established that the criterion for termination and the distinction between government counsels appointed before and after a specified date does not infringe upon constitutional mandates, noting the nature of their office and duty underscores a fiduciary relationship. (Paras 106, 110)

(C) Employment Law - Relationship of Master and Servant - The court clarifies that the tests to establish an employer-employee relationship are not applicable to the District Government Counsel, affirming they operate as independent counsel under contract rather than as civil servants. (Paras 55, 112)

1. Since common questions of fact and law in this writ petition and in the connected writ petitions are involved, we propose to decide these writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4215 of 1990 is an Advocate and was appointed as a District Government Counsel (Civil), Basti on 7-4-1983 for a period of one year. His appointment as District Government Counsel (Civil) Basti is alleged to have been extended from time to time, the last extension being for a period from 1-7-1989 to 30-6-1992.

3. Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.4392 of 1990 is an Association duly registered with the Registrar of Societies, Chits and Firms, U.P. Lucknow - W, known as U.P. Government Counsel (Criminal) Welfare Association, Meerut Branch, District Courts, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as an 'Association'). The Association is said to be a State Level Organisation of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors appointed under S.24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having its headquarter at Bareilly. Petitioner No.2 is its Secretary.

4. In Writ Petition No.4214 of 1990 petitioner No.2 was appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) for a period of one year. His term of office was renewed for another three years.

5. Writ Petition No.4208 of 1990 has been filed by U. P. Government Counsel (Criminal) Welfare Association having its office at District Judge's Court, Bareilly through its President Srikant. The President of the Association was appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) and his term was renewed from time to time and his present term was extended from 1-7-1989 to 23-6-199O.

6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4417 of 1990 was appointed as District Government Counsel (Revenue), Basti by order dated 12-8-1988 for a period of one year. Although his term of office has not been renewed but he has been allowed to continue till further orders.

7. In Writ Petition No.4479 of 1990 the petitioner was appointed as Additional District Government Counsel (Revenue) for a period beginning from 1-7-1987 to 30-8-1989. Although the term of the petitioner has not been renewed yet he is still continuing to act as such.

8. In Writ Petition. No.4424 of 1990 the petitioner is a Panel Lawyer appointed by the State Government.

9. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4500 of 1990 is a District Government Counsel (Criminal) Azamgarh and his term as District Government Counsel (Criminal) has been renewed for three years from 17-8-1989 to 3-7-1992.

10. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.6025 of 1990 is District Government Counsel (Civil) at Etawah and continued to work as such till 28-2-1990.

11. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.6026 of 1990 is working as a Panel Lawyer since 1983 appointed by the State Government.

12. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.6027 of 1990 are working as Assistant Public Prosecutors Fatehpur since 1983.

13. The petitioner Swami Dayal in Writ Petition No. of 1990 was appointed as Sub- District Government Counsel (Civil), Bansi, Siddharthnagar.

14. In Writ Petition No. of 1990, filed by Gangadhar Upadhyay on 15th March, 1990, the petitioner was appointed as District Government Counsel (Revenue) and is working as such in Jaunpur.

15. By means of these writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the legality of the Government order dated 6th February, 1990 directing that the terms of all the Government Counsel including Penal Lawyers should be extended only up to 28th February, 1990 and the District Magistrates of the Districts have been required to send fresh names for fresh appointments as District Government Counsel (Civil), District Government Counsel (Criminal), District Government Counsel (Revenue), Assistant Panel Lawyers and others. The impugned order further provides that the present Government Counsel shall be allowed to work only up to 28th February, 1990 and thereafter their appointment shall be terminated. A copy of the Government Order has been an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(Online)(All) 6

The District Government Counsel do not hold civil posts or employee status under Article 311; their engagement is contractual, terminable at will without notice, and does not attract constitutional protections.

Cases Referred (5)