Karnataka High Court
Smt M S Ramya vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
WP No. 2439 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 2439 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. M.S. RAMYA,
W/O ASHOK KUMAR M.N,
ADVOCATE, AGED 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.51, SHANTHILAL LAYOUT,
WARD NO.27, SHANTHINAGAR,
RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NITHYA V, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE
by V KRISHNA AND HUMAN RIGHTS (ADMN-2),
Location: High VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Court of
Karnataka
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
3. SRI. A. LOKESH,
ADVOCATE, AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT CHANNAKE GOWDANA DODDI,
KUDLURU HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
WP No. 2439 of 2024
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. C.R. BHASKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 01.01.2024 IN LAW LAD/1/2024
PASSED BY THE R-1 AS ILLEGAL IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER AT
SL NO. 15 IN PART -1 VIDE ANNX-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner,
who was appointed as Additional Government Pleader,
assailing impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as per
Annexure-B, which relates to Part-1 Sl. No.15 by which
petitioner is removed from the post of Additional
Government Pleader and consequently, respondent No.3 is
appointed as Additional Government Pleader.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
3. The short point that needs consideration at the
hands of this Court is;
"whether under impugned Notification
vide Annexure -B, respondent No.2 could have
appointed respondent No.4 as Additional
Government Pleader in contravention of Rule
26(2) of the Karnataka Law Officers
(Appointment and Conditions of Service),
Rules, 1977 (for short 'Rules 1977)?"
4. The issue relating to appointment of Additional
Government Pleader is no more res-integra and the same
is given quietus by the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench in the case of HANUMANTHA RAO KULKARNI V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Writ Appeal
No.1937/2006. It is nobodies case that respondent No.3,
in the present case on hand, is appointed as Additional
Government Pleader by adhering to the mandate
enumerated in Rule 26(2) of Rules, 1977.
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
5. Rule 26(2) of Rules, 1977 states that the Deputy
Commissioner shall invite applications from eligible
practicing advocates of the places and on receipt of
applications, he is required to forward these applications
to the District Judge along with his remarks about their
suitability for appointment to the concerned post.
On receipt of the same, the District Judge shall forward
the same to the Government; the Department of Law and
Parliamentary Affairs appending his remarks regarding the
suitability of each of them for the concerned posts.
6. In the present case on hand, the aforesaid
procedure is not followed by the concerned Authorities and
therefore, the impugned order appointing respondent No.3
to the post of Additional Government Pleader is bad in law
and it contravenes the mandatory procedure contemplated
under 26(2) of Rules, 1977.
7. Since petitioner is questioning her removal, this
Court needs to take cognizance of the judgment cited
supra, which has dealt with a similar issue. The Division
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
Bench, while considering removal of Additional
Government Pleader, has held that Advocate, who is
appointed as a Additional Government Pleader, can
continue to hold office during the pleasure of the
Government and that if the Government decides to
dispense with his/her services, he/she cannot impose
his/her services on the Government.
8. Referring to Rule 5(6) of Rules, 1977, the Division
Bench has held that State Government may terminate the
appointment of a Law Officer without assigning any
reason, by giving one month's notice in writing or by
giving one month's retainer fee. In lieu of such notice, the
Authorities are entitled to terminate appointment to the
post of Additional Government Pleader.
9. Materials on record clearly reveal that Rule 5(6) of
Rules, 1977 is complied and therefore, in the light of the
law laid down by the Division Bench in the judgment cited
supra, petitioner has no locus and cannot ventilate any
grievance for having been removed within the expiry of
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
three year term. Since appointment of respondent No.3 is
held to be bad in law, to prevent any inconvenience to the
Government in contesting the suits, by way of interim
arrangements, the petitioner is entitled to continue till
fresh appointment is made in accordance with law.
10. With these above observations, I proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The writ petition is dismissed insofar
as impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as
per Annexure - C (Part - 1, Sl. No.15) removing
the petitioner from the post of Additional
Government Pleader in Ramanagara.
(iii) The writ petition is allowed and the
impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as per
Annexure - C (Part - 2, Sl. No.37) appointing
respondent No.3 as Additional Government
Pleader is hereby quashed.
NC: 2024:KHC:6356
(iv) The petitioner shall continue to
discharge her service as Additional Government
Pleader till fresh appointment is made in
accordance with law.
(v) Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
