The Madras High Court has upheld the Appointment of Law Officers of the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017), including the formation of a Selection Committee and criteria such as qualification, experience, integrity, and legal acumen. The Court observed that this procedure was not arbitrary and ensured transparency in the selection of Law Officers.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the Rules of 2017. The petitioner contends that these rules lack transparency and fail to provide adequate representation to women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and minorities in appointment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the absence of reservation makes the rules arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner emphasised the importance of a fair and transparent selection process for Law Officers and highlighted the alleged lack of scrutiny in the previous selection process. The petitioner sought directions to frame new rules ensuring transparency, adequate representation for specific groups, and the issuance of public notifications for Law Officer appointments.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents asserted that the post of Law Officer is not a civil post but a professional practitioner engaged for specific legal tasks. They argue that providing reservation for such positions may not be advisable, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[1]. The respondents contend that the appointment of Law Officers in Tamil Nadu follows the Rules of 2017, which were previously upheld by the court in another case. They further argued that the petitioner's request for new rules with specific reservations involves legislative policy and may not be a suitable subject for a writ petition.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court's analysis emphasised the detailed procedure outlined in the Rules of 2017 for the appointment of Law Officers of the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai. The Court acknowledges the critical duty of the government to engage proficient and competent individuals to represent public interest. The Court observed 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, are not holding any civil post. They are also not government servants and/or government employees. The appointment of these Law Officers is at the pleasure of the government.”
The Court asserted that the engagement of Law Officers is not a civil post, and Article 16(4) of the Constitution, pertaining to reservation policies, is not applicable. The Court relied on Supreme Court's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma[2] to support this position as it was held that the appointment of a legal practitioner as a District Government Counsel is only a professional engagement terminable at will and is not appointment to a post under the government
In response to the petitioner's reliance on State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and Ors.[3], the Court distinguished it stating that it concerns the procedure and methodology in public employment, not applicable to Law Officers engaged by the government. The Court observed that the established procedure was neither arbitrary nor lacking transparency and stated that “it cannot be held that reservation – vertical and/or horizontal needs to be provided while appointing the Law Officers by the government.”
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition stating that the laid-down procedure is neither arbitrary nor lacking transparency.
Case Title: Thol.Thirumaavalavan vs. The Principal Secretary and Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Case no.: W.P.No.14582 of 2017
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.M.Palanimuthu
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. R.Shunmugasundaram, Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader and Ms. A.G.Shakeena
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
[1] 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
[2] 1995 Latest Caselaw 554 SC
[3] 2006 Latest Caselaw 193 SC
Picture Source :
