JUDGMENT

1. The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, who is an Advocate. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the method of empanelment of Advocates to represent the Union of India contending that the size of the panel to represent the Government of India is not fixed and the Government does not invite applications for appointment or renewal of the panel and that the appointment of Advocates as Government Counsel is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal, (2016) 6 SCC 1.

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner himself was an empanelled Government Counsel and at the time of his empanelment also neither there was any fixed panel of Advocates to represent Government of India nor was the Petitioner subjected to any written examination before his appointment as Government Counsel.

3. The short question which arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the Union of India has violated the judgment of the Apex Court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (supra) or not. In the said case, the judgment was passed by the Apex Court while hearing a transfer petition and the question that was raised in the Apex Court was as to whether the appointment of law officers by the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed on the ground that the same are arbitrary, hence, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the transfer petition was filed for the transfer of a Writ Petition which was challenged by a person who was initially appointed as Assistant Advocate General by order dated 23.04.2002. The appointment was on contractual basis and it was valid till to 31.03.2003, but the same was continued till 31.03.2004 by an order dated 19.07.2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner therein was appointed as Deputy Advocate General in the pay scale of Rs 18,400-22,400/- by order dated 11.01.2008 and his tenure was later extended up to year 2011-2012. It is also pertinent to mention that the law officers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, from where the issue before the Apex Court arose, are entitled to a monthly salary and one of the allegations made by the Petitioner therein was that a number of Law Officers are without work and are only receiving the salary, which, according to the Petitioner therein, was idle salary. Therefore, the challenge before the Apex Court was for a post. In the present case the challenge is for the mode of empanelment of lawyers and not appointment of lawyers to a post.

4. Unlike the case before the Apex Court, in the present case there is no fixed salary. In fact, in the present case even a retainer fee is not paid to the lawyers who are empanelled. The Lawyers empanelled by the Government of India are paid their fee on a case to case basis. As stated earlier, the Petitioner herein has himself been a beneficiary of the process which he is now challenging in the present petition. The judgment of the Apex Court will definitely apply to those States where monthly salary or a retainer fee is paid to the Law Officers and it will not apply to a case where lawyers are being empanelled and are paid on a case to case basis.

5. It seems that the Petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed the present petition after being a beneficiary of the very same process which has been assailed in the present Writ Petition only because he has been denied extension or reappointment. A litigant can always choose a lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation.

6. Lamenting on the waste of time caused by the frivolous PILs and the fact that Petitions are being camouflaged as PILs to settle personal scores, th