STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC versus U.P. STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 25-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
+ 
U.P. STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. 
JANUARY 25, 1994 
B 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Law Officers and Brief Holders 
appointed by State Government to conduct its cases in High Court-Removal 
of-Held, valid and proper as their appointment was itself arbitrary and was 
c made in disregard of the Articl~The mode of appointment of lawyers for 
public bodies has to be in conj ormity with the obligation case on them to 
select the most meritorious. 
Legal Remembrancer's Manual: Chapters V and VI-Law Officers and 
Brief Holders for conducting cases in High Court-Appointment of-Terms 
D of contract stipulating that appointment could be terminated at any time 
without assigning reason-Held, such appointments are made, accepted and 
understood by both sides to be purely professional engagements till they last. 
,. 
Professional Engagement: Legal profession-Nature of-Appointment 
E of Law Officers for public bodies-Modes of appointment and removal-
Obligation cast on public bodies to select the most meritorious--Held, an 
open invitation to lawyers to compete is by for the best mode of selection-ln 
certain circumstances method of inviting and appointing the best available 
may be adopte~Whatever the method adopted, it must be shown that search 
for meritorious was undertaken and appointments were made only on the 
F 
basis of merit and not for any other consideration. 
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh engaged lawyers as Chief · 
Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel on the civil side and Government 
Advocate, Additional Government Advocate, Deputy Government Advocate 
G 
and Assistant Government Advocate on the Criminal side, to attend to the 
Government work in the High Court of Allahabad and its Lucknow Bench. 
The terms of appointment of these Law Officers contained a condition that 
notwithstanding the period for which they were appointed, they could be 
1--
removed at any time without giving any reason whatsoever. The Govern-
ment also appointed Brief Holders frolJl amongst the practising advocates 
H to conduct such civil and criminal cases in the High Court as would be 
348 
[ 
STATEOFU.P. v. U.P.LAWOFFICERSASSN. 
349 
entrusted to them, with the stipulation that-such appointment would not A 
be deemed to be appointment to any office or post but only professional 
engagement to be terminated on either side at will. 
The State Government by its order dated 26.5.1990 abolished the 
system of engaging Brief Holders in the High Court with immediate effect 
and by order dated 23. 7.1990 removed 26 out of its 64 Law Officer working B 
in the High Court. By yet another order dated 28.6.1990 the Government 
authorised the Legal Remembrancer to appoint special counsel and gave 
him financial and administrative powers which were earlier exercised by 
the Chief Standing Counsel and the Public Prosecutor. He was also given 
power to distribute the work to various Standing Counsel and Additional C 
Public Prosemtors. 
The Law Officers and the Brief Holders filed a Writ Petition before 
the High Court contending that their removal was against the principles 
of natural justice and that they could be removed from their officer only 
for valid reasons. 
D 
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the ord~s 
dated 25.5.1990 and 23.7.1990 as also all the fresh appointments made by 
the State Government, and directed payment of remuneration to th~w 
Officers who were removed. It also made observations against the ilgaI 
Remembrancer. 
E 
The State and the newly appointed Law Officer filed appeals, by 
special leave, before the Court, 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. Both the orders dated 23.7.1990 and 26.5.1990 passed by 
the State Government terminating the appointment of the respondent-Law 
Officers and abolishing the system of Brief Holders respectively are valid 
F 
and proper. The High Court committed a patent error of law in setting 
aside the two orders. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. Conse-
G 
quently, the order of the High Court quashing the fresh appointments and 
directing payment to officers whose appointments were terminated is set 
aside, and its direction to the Government to continue the system of the 
Brief Holders stands quashed. [367-D-E] 
2.1. Chapter V of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual indicates that H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
to appoint the Chief Sta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.