Read Time: 08 minutes
The court held that the appointment and removal of Law Officers are matters of government discretion, and no restrictions can be placed on its authority to select its preferred counsel
The Telangana High Court upheld the dismissal of several government-appointed Law Officers, affirming that such appointments are subject to the government’s discretion and do not constitute civil posts. The court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single judge’s order that validated the government's decision to terminate the services of Law Officers appointed during the previous regime.
The decision was delivered by a Division bench comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, on a plea filed by the appellants, including Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders, who were appointed between 2021 and 2023 for a three-year term under the Telangana Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000. However, their services were abruptly terminated via G.O.Rt.No.354 dated June 26, 2024, which also provided one month's honorarium in lieu of notice, as per Instruction 9 of the 2000 Guidelines. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed writ petitions seeking to invalidate the termination and compel the state to reinstate them with all associated benefits. The single judge dismissed the petitions, prompting the present appeal.
The appellants contended that their termination violated the contractual provision mandating one month’s notice, as outlined in the applicable guidelines. It was alleged that the termination was driven by mala fide intent, claiming it was politically motivated due to a change in regime. To support their arguments, the appellants relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P and State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, to emphasise that “a change of Government, i.e., change of political party which may come into power in the general elections, does not change the character of the continuing body of the State Government and cannot en-masse discontinue the Law Officers.” It was further contended that government decisions impacting legal appointments must adhere to the principles of reasonableness and fairness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Opposing the appellants’ contentions, the State argued that the appointments of the Law Officers were purely contractual and subject to its discretion, as outlined in the 2000 Guidelines. It emphasised that the state must retain the freedom to appoint legal counsel who command its trust and confidence, highlighting the absence of any employer-employee relationship between the government and the Law Officers. Citing precedents such as Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. Pushpendar Kaur and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari, the government contended that legal practitioners engaged by the state cannot claim enforceable rights to tenure or continuation of their appointments.
Endorsing the single judge's findings, the court held that the government, as the client, retains absolute discretion to appoint and disengage Law Officers without assigning reasons. It observed: “it is clear that it is for the Government to choose the counsel of its choice and the relationship between the Government and Law Officers is purely contractual and they do not hold any civil posts. It is also clear that these appointments are at the pleasure of the Government which can be terminated without giving any reason.”
The court highlighted that Legal representation requires mutual trust, and it would be unreasonable to compel the government to retain counsel in whom it lacks confidence. “The Law Officers cannot insist the Government to continue to engage their services. Therefore, learned single judge has rightly observed that Law Officers who are basically engaged to represent the Government and take care of the Government’s interest should enjoy the trust and confidence of the Government and thus, it would be unreasonable to deprive the Government of such freedom and discretion to appoint counsel of its choice,” the court stated.
Consequently, the court upheld the termination order and dismissed the appeal, noting that the government had complied with the procedural requirement of paying one month’s honorarium as compensation for immediate termination. The court also directed the state to settle any pending arrears.
Cause Title: Nagaram Anjaiah vs. The State of Telangana [WA 1138/2024]
Please Login or Register
