The court upheld the Government's authority to appoint multiple junior counsels and affirmed equal entitlement to fees among them.

1. Both the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In C.C.C.A. No. 99/77 the Government is the respondent. They directed the Advocate - General to enter appearance on behalf of the Government. Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, the then Advocate General requested the Government in his letter dt. Mar., 27, 1978 to appoint two junior counsel and pursuant thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 813 Revenue, dt. May 15, 1978 appointing Sri P. Nagaseshaiah, and Sri P. Venkatamuni Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No. 20054/87) as junior counsel to assist the Advocate General. In para 2 of the said G.O. it is stated that both the junior counsel should take 1/3rd of the regulated fee to which the Advocate - General is entitled. Subsequently, Sri Ramachandra Reddy resigned and Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy was appointed as Advocate - General. Thereafter by his letter dt. Nov., 8, 1983 to the Government, Sri Subrahmanya Reddy requested to permit him to engage the services of Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy (petitioner in W.P. 585/88) advocate to assist him in the above appeal. The Government, in Memo No. 521 dt. Dec., 27, 1983 permitted the Advocate General to engage the services of Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy and in para 2, it is stated that he will share the fee equally with the other two juniors viz. Sri Nagaseshaiah and the petitioner of the one - third of the fee to which the Advocate General is entitled as per the rules. Under R.12 of the Advocates Fee Rules , the advocate is entitled to the regulated fee and under sub-rule (2) thereof, the junior is entitled to one - third of the fee as regulated under sub-sec.(1) thereof. The appeal CCCA 99/77 was disposed of on Sept., 18, 1984, Then the regulated fee of one - third, has been equally distributed between Sri P. Nagaseshaiah Sri P. Venkatamuni Reddy and Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy.

3. Sri P. Venkatamuni Reddy, petitioner in W.P. No. 20054/87 assails the legality of para 2 of Government Memo Nos. 521 dt. Dec., 27, 1983. He contends that once he has been appointed along with Sri Nagaseshaih to share one - third of the fee, there is a promise made by the Government that he will be entitled to 1/6th of fee which the Advocate General is entitled to and the appointment of a third person is detrimental to his right, therefore, the Government is estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel to engage any other counsel or giving direction to share the one third fee payable to the Advocate General along with him. I am unable to agree. The very object of appointing a junior counsel is to assist the senior counsel who is entitled to the fee as regulated under R.12(1) of the Advocate Fee Rules. In this case, in view of the magnitude of the case involved, the Government directed the learned Advocate General to appear on behalf of the Government in C.C.C.A. No. 99/77 and the Advocate General is entitled to take the assistance of a junior counsel by operation of Note to Cl.(2) of R.3 of the Andhra Pradesh Advocate - General (Duties, Leave and Remuneration) Order, 1961 issued through G.O.Ms. No. 1640 Home (Courts - C) Department dt. Aug. 21, 1961, which reads :
"Except in special cases the Advocate General will not be allowed the assistance of a Junior counsel for work in Courts. In special cases when such assistance becomes necessary, the previous sanction of the Government shall be obtained, though the selection of a suitable person shall be left to the "Advocate - General."
Therefore, it is clear that the Advocate General has the free choice to select a pe