ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as Additional Government Pleader, assailing impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as per Annexure-B, which relates to Part-1 Sl. No.15 by which petitioner is removed from the post of Additional Government Pleader and consequently, respondent No.3 is appointed as Additional Government Pleader.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is;

"whether under impugned Notification vide Annexure –B, respondent No.2 could have appointed respondent No.4 as Additional Government Pleader in contravention of Rule 26(2) of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service), Rules, 1977 (for short ‘Rules 1977)?"

4. The issue relating to appointment of Additional Government Pleader is no more res-integra and the same is given quietus by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of HANUMANTHA RAO KULKARNI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Writ Appeal No.1937/2006. It is nobodies case that respondent No.3, in the present case on hand, is appointed as Additional Government Pleader by adhering to the mandate enumerated in Rule 26(2) of Rules, 1977.

5. Rule 26(2) of Rules, 1977 states that the Deputy Commissioner shall invite applications from eligible practicing advocates of the places and on receipt of applications, he is required to forward these applications to the District Judge along with his remarks about their suitability for appointment to the concerned post. On receipt of the same, the District Judge shall forward the same to the Government; the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs appending his remarks regarding the suitability of each of them for the concerned posts.

6. In the present case on hand, the aforesaid procedure is not followed by the concerned Authorities and therefore, the impugned order appointing respondent No.3 to the post of Additional Government Pleader is bad in law and it contravenes the mandatory procedure contemplated under 26(2) of Rules, 1977.

7. Since petitioner is questioning her removal, this Court needs to take cognizance of the judgment cited supra, which has dealt with a similar issue. The Division Bench, while considering removal of Additional Government Pleader, has held that Advocate, who is appointed as a Additional Government Pleader, can continue to hold office during the pleasure of the Government and that if the Government decides to dispense with his/her services, he/she cannot impose his/her services on the Government.

8. Referring to Rule 5(6) of Rules, 1977, the Division Bench has held that State Government may terminate the appointment of a Law Officer without assigning any reason, by giving one month’s notice in writing or by giving one month’s retainer fee. In lieu of such notice, the Authorities are entitled to terminate appointment to the post of Additional Government Pleader.

9. Materials on record clearly reveal that Rule 5(6) of Rules, 1977 is complied and therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the judgment cited supra, petitioner has no locus and cannot ventilate any grievance for having been removed within the expiry of three year term. Since appointment of respondent No.3 is held to be bad in law, to prevent any inconvenience to the Government in contesting the suits, by way of interim arrangements, the petitioner is entitled to continue till fresh appointment is made in accordance with law.

10. With these above observations, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The writ petition is dismissed insofar as impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as per Annexure – C (Part – 1, Sl. No.15) removing the petitioner from the post of Additional Government Pleader in Ramanagara.

(iii) The writ petition is allowed and the impugned Notificatio