G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the common orders of the learned Single Judge in writ Petition Nos. 2054/95 and Batch dated 25-3-1995, the Government has come up with this Batch of Writ Appeals.

( 2 ) THE Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in the districts of Andhra Pradesh filed Writ Petitions challenging the orders passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh terminating their services before the expiry of their term. It is their case that they were appointed by the respective district Collectors on the basis of panels forwarded by the respective District judges. There are no statutory rules prescribing the method and manner of appointment of Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. Therefore, the Government issued executive instructions in G. O. Ms. No. 57 law Department, dated 16-3-1990 stipulating the procedure to be followed while making appointment to the post of Government Pleaders and Assistant government Pleaders in the Districts. Thus they were appointed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. The principal grievance of the government Counsel is that once they were appointed for a particular tenure, their services cannot be terminated before the completion of the tenure by invoking the provision of the one month notice. The orders passed by the government terminating their services arbitrary and colourful exercise of power. In the general elections held in the year 1994 there was a change in the Ruling party and therefore only idea of changing all the Government pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in the Districts was to accommodate their own persons. The wholesale termination of the services was mala fide and the same was sought to be set aside. The contention of the government was that under the guidelines issued they are entitled to terminate the services by giving one month notice and therefore such termination was not justiciable. Thus, it was sought to be argued that the action of the government is beyond the pale of judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge by detailed order allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the State has filed the present Writ Appeals.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General Sri chalameshwar that the order of the Government is quite legal and valid and the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions. It is his contention that it is open for the Government to terminate the services by giving one month notice and the said action was up-held by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. U. P. State Law Officers Association. He also submits that the action of terminating the services of a Government Pleader by resorting to one month notice cannot fee said to be arbitrary and the said provision was held to be valid by this Court in Vilas Rao vs. State of A. P. . This contention was considered by the learned Single Judge. It was found that in Vilas Rao s case (2nd cited supra), it was an individual grievance where the services of the Government Pleader were terminated by giving one month notice and such a termination was up-held by this Court. But in the instant case, it is a case of en masse termination of all Government Pleaders in all the Districts of the State and the only reason advanced on behalf of the Government was that due to change in the Ruling party of the State Government, such a step was taken as the State Government should be at liberty to appoint their own government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. The contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge holding that merely because of change in the Ruling Party that would not ipso facto result in termination of services of the Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders more especially when the Government Pleaders are the holders of the public posts. We see no infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document