Reservation is not required to be provided while appointing Law Officers by Government: Madras High Court

Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed against the “Appointment of Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017” (‘Rules, 2017’) incorporated vide Notification under Government Order, dated 29-4-2017. The petitioner also sought directions to frame new rules to ensure transparency; the division bench of Sanjay V. Gangapurwala*, CJ. and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. held that the reservation — vertical and/or horizontal is not required to be provided while appointing the Law Officers by the government. The procedure laid down does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, nor it can be said that the procedure is not transparent.

The petitioner contended that the Rules 2017, nowhere provide for reservation in appointment. It is submitted that, even if it is assumed that the Law Officers hold temporary appointments, reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is provided in all temporary appointments, except the appointments which are to last for less than 45 days. No reservation is provided in the Rules of 2017; thus, the impugned Rules are arbitrary, unjust and liable to be quashed.

The Court noted that a detailed procedure is prescribed for selecting Law Officers under Rules 2017.

The Court said that the relationship between an advocate and his client is of active confidence and trust. It’s the duty of the government to engage the most proficient, competent and capable persons to represent it. The selection of Law Officers, the government is duty bound to make earnest efforts to choose the best. Thus, while selecting the Law Officers, merit ought to be the sole consideration. The methodology adopted for selecting the Law Officers naturally has to be transparent and the invitation of the applications should be broad-based, so as to enable the government to select the most competent, capable and meritorious lawyers to represent it as Law Officers.

Further, it added that the relationship between the Government and the Law Officer is purely a professional relationship and not that of a master and servant. The Law Officers engaged by the Government, during their performance of the duty, do not hold any civil post. They are also not government servants. The appointment of these Law Officers is at the pleasure of the Government. The sine qua non is that the Law Officers selected by the government should be duly qualified, competent and worthy of representing it.

After placing reliance on Govindrao Namdeorao Shirsat v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 SCC OnLine Bom 651, the Court said that the Law Officers engaged by the Government do not hold a civil post, nor the relationship of master and servant exists, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would not be applicable. The criterion to apply to the reservation policy would not be attracted.

Thus, the Court held that the reservation — vertical and/or horizontal is not required to be provided while appointing the Law Officers by the government. The procedure is laid down does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, nor it can be said that the procedure is not transparent.

[Thol.Thirumaavalavan v Principal Secretary, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 7756, Order dated 07-12-2023]

*Order by: Justice Sanjay V.Gangapurwala

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Writ Petitioner: Advocate M. Palanimuthu

For Respondents: Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram , State Government Pleader Muthukumar S and Advocate A.G.Shakeen

Buy Constitution of India  HERE