Karnataka High Court
Sri A Lokesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
WP No. 2770 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.2770 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A LOKESH
SO ANKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
CHENNAKE GOWDANA DODDI
KUDLUR POST
CHENNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHASKAR C R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ALBHAGYA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
Location: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH
VIDHANA SOUDHA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
WP No. 2770 of 2024
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA - 562 160
4. NAGARAJU S
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KOOTGAL VILLAGE AND POST
KOOTGAL HOBI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.R.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3;
SRI.D.BOREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PART I AND PART II VIDE
NO.LA-LAD 01/2024 DATED 01/01/2024 OF THE R2 VIDE
ANNEXURE C (IN SO FAR AS THE PART II AND SL.NO.07
CONCERNED) TO THE WP CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE
APPOINTMENT OF R.4 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT 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 District Government Pleader,
assailing impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as per
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
Annexure-C, which relates to Part-II at Sl. No.7 by which
petitioner is removed from the post of District Government
Pleader and consequently, respondent No.4 is appointed
as District Government Pleader.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The short point that needs consideration at the
hands of this Court is;
Whether under impugned Notification vide
Annexure -C, respondent No.2 could have
appointed respondent No.4 as District
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 District
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Writ Appeal
No.1937/2006. It is no bodies case that respondent No.4,
in the present case on hand, is appointed as District
Government Pleader by adhering to the mandate
enumerated in Rule 26(2) of Rules, 1977.
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 in the Department of Law
and Parliamentary Affairs appending his remarks regarding
suitability of each of them for the concerned posts.
6. In the present case on hand, procedure is not
followed by the concerned Authorities and therefore, the
impugned order appointing respondent No.4 to the post of
District Government Pleader is bad in law and it
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
contravenes to the mandatory procedure contemplated
under 26(2) of Rules, 1977.
7. Since petitioner is questioning his removal, this
Court needs to take cognizance of the judgment cited
supra, which has dealt with a similar issue. The Division
Bench, while considering removal of District Government
Pleader, has held that Advocate, who is appointed as a
District Government Pleader, can continue to hold office
during the pleasure of the Government and that if the
Government decides to dispense with his services, he
cannot impose his 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 of the
post of District Government Pleader.
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
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 he cannot
ventilate any grievance for having been removed within
the expiry of three year term. Since appointment of
respondent No.4 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 the above observations, this Court
proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The writ petition is dismissed insofar
as impugned order removing the petitioner from
the post of District Government Pleader.
NC: 2024:KHC:6518
(iii) The writ petition is allowed and the
impugned Notification dated 01.01.2024 as per
Annexure - C (Part - 2 at Sl. No.7) appointing
respondent No.4 as District Government Pleader
is hereby quashed.
(iv) The petitioner shall continue to
discharge his service as District Government
Pleader till fresh appointment is made in
accordance with law.
(v) Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
