1993 (1) TMI 297 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Status of law officers engaged by the State Government in the High Court.
2. Validity of the State Government's order removing law officers.
3. Abolition of the system of engaging Brief Holders.
4. Role and powers of the Legal Remembrancer.
5. Comparison with the judgment in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.

Summary:

1. Status of Law Officers:
The appeals raised an important question regarding the status of law officers engaged by the State Government to conduct cases on its behalf in the High Court, touching upon the lawyer's profession, the lawyer-client relationship, and the relationship between the Government and the lawyers they engage.

2. Validity of Removal Order:
The State Government removed 26 law officers by an order dated July 23, 1990. The High Court quashed this removal order, stating it was against the principles of natural justice and that the officers could only be removed for valid reasons. However, the Supreme Court found that the terms of appointment allowed for termination at any time without reason and that the law officers had no right to hold office beyond their contractual period. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a patent error in setting aside the removal order.

3. Abolition of Brief Holders System:
The State Government abolished the system of engaging Brief Holders by an order dated May 26, 1990, and authorized the Legal Remembrancer to appoint special counsel for special matters. The High Court quashed this order and directed the continuation of the Brief Holders system. The Supreme Court found that the appointment of Brief Holders was at the discretion of the State Government and that the Government was justified in abolishing the system and appointing special counsel as needed.

4. Role and Powers of the Legal Remembrancer:
The Supreme Court noted that the Legal Remembrancer always had a role in the appointment, distribution of work, and supervision of law officers. The High Court's judgment was seen as unjustly targeting the Legal Remembrancer. The Supreme Court found the comments and observations against him to be unjustified and unfortunate.

5. Comparison with Shrilekha Vidyarthi Case:
The respondents relied on the judgment in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., which dealt with the appointment and removal of District Government Counsel. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the District Government Counsel were appointed through open competition and on merit, whereas the High Court law officers were not. The wholesale termination of District Government Counsel was found arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, but this reasoning did not apply to the High Court law officers whose appointments were arbitrary and not based on merit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declaring both the orders dated July 23, 1990, and May 26, 1990, as valid and proper. The termination of the respondents-law officers' appointments was upheld, and the direction to continue the system of Brief Holders was quashed. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.