Telangana High Court Upholds Removal Of Law Officers After Change In Govt, Says Appointment Subject To Pleasure Of Govt

While upholding an order of the single judge on removal of certain government appointed advocates, the Telangana High Court said that there was no employer-employee relation between the State and the law officers. 

Notably the legislative assembly elections were held in the state in November 2023. The results were announced in December 2023 with the Congress and its allies winning the maximum number of seats against the incumbent Bharat Rashtra Samithi. The government order removing the appellants from their services was issued in June this year. The appellants contended that a change of Government–change of political party which may come into power in the general elections–does not change the character of the continuing body of the State Government and cannot en-masse discontinue the Law Officer

However a division bench of Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty in its order said that the law officers were appointed and not selected and so their continuation can be subjected to the pleasure and confidence of the Government. 

"A perusal of instruction No.9 in G.O.Ms.No.187 indicates that the Government is empowered and entitled to terminate the engagement of Law Officers by issuing one month's notice and also by paying one month honorarium in lieu of one month's notice. Moreover, there is no employer-employee relationship between the State and Law Officers as the same is a contractual relationship. Law Officers are appointed without following any selection procedure and their continuation is subject to pleasure and confidence of the Government. It can also be observed from para 3 of G.O. Rt. No.354 that the District Collectors concerned were requested to pay one month honorarium to the Law Officers," the court said. 

Further, the court said that engaging services of an advocate is based on trust and confidence and similar is the state when the government hires one. The government is entitled to terminate services when it loses confidence and law officers cannot insist on continuing the same, it added.

“It is needless to note that engagement of services of an advocate by client is based on trust and confidence. It is the prerogative of the client to engage or disengage services of an advocate and if the client looses confidence and trust, he is at liberty to engage services of another advocate of his/her choice. An advocate cannot insist a client to continue his/her services when the client has lost confidence, trust and expressed his unwillingness to continue his/her services. However, an advocate is entitled to the fee for the services rendered to the client before his/her disengagement. In the same lines, when the Government loses confidence upon the Law Officers, it is entitled to terminate the services and appoint a new set of Law Officers and thus, the Law Officers cannot insist the Government to continue to engage their services”. 

Background

The case was regarding the appellants' services which were discontinued as Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders and Additional Government Pleaders ('Law Officers') in various Courts of the District Judiciary based on a government order dated June 26. 

As per per proviso to Instruction No.9 of the Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, issued in G.O.Ms.No.187, the government can terminate services of a Law Officer on one month's notice or one month's honorarium in lieu of the notice. Aggrieved by the proceedings of discontinuation, the appellants filed the  Writ Petitions seeking to set aside G.O.Rt.No.354 and to direct the State to continue the services of the appellants, in terms of their respective orders of appointment, with all consequential benefits including payment of honorarium, etc. 

The single judge in its order said that Law Officers who are basically engaged to represent the Government and take care of the Government's interest should enjoy the trust and confidence of the Government. It held that if the Government does not have freedom to appoint counsel of its choice, it would amount to placing fetters on their decisions and thereby cause interference in the administration. It had further held that the petitioners do not have any enforceable right to be continued as Law Officers as their disengagement was in accordance with proviso to Instruction No.9 of G.O. Ms. No.187. However, the single Judge directed the Government to pay the arrears of salary, if any, and honorarium to the petitioners and to other Law Officers whose services were disengaged by June 26 G.O. Against this order the appellants approached the division bench. 

Findings

Taking note of the decisions referred to by the single judge in its order the division bench said, "it is clear that it is for the Government to choose the counsel of its choice and the relationship between the Government and Law Officers is purely contractual and they do not hold any civil posts. It is also clear that these appointments are at the pleasure of the Government which can be terminated without giving any reason". 

It said that the single judge had rightly observed that Law Officers who are basically engaged to represent the Government and take care of the Government's interest should "enjoy the trust and confidence" of the Government and thus, it would be unreasonable to deprive the Government of such freedom and discretion to appoint counsel of its choice. 

The court, therefore concluded that the appellants haven't established the illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the earlier single judge bench and therefore, the Writ appeal was dismissed.

Case name: Nagaram Anjaiah vs. The State of Telangana

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Bramhadandi Ramesh

Counsel for Respondent: Smt. Adepu Divya

Case No; WA 1138/ 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order