Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointment Of State Law Officers Citing Parallel Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which challenged the appointment of the Advocates by the State Government as Additional Advocate General (AAG), Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Additional Chief Standing Counsel (Addl. CSC), Standing Counsels (SC), Brief Holders Civil and Brief Holder Criminal.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava noted that an identical PIL was filed before a coordinate bench of the same court and is still pending. 

"In view of the fact that a coordinate Bench of this Court is already seized of the issues raised in this petition as noticed herein above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ PIL and the same is dismissed."

Earlier this month, two practising advocates had filed a public interest litigation challenging the appointments made to the panel of lawyers representing the State on the ground that due procedure had not been followed while making such appointments. Appointments have been given to the Advocates who were in close proximity to the Government. Further, it was alleged that the desired 30% quota for lady advocates had been ignored.

Inter-alia, it was prayed that the State be directed to constitute a 5 Member Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge to examine and inquire into the competence and eligibility of those appointed to the State panel.

Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, argued that any litigant has the right to choose his lawyer to represent him in a Court of law. The state, being a litigant, is free to choose the lawyers/ panel of lawyers to represent it before the Court.

Further, it was contended that the PIL had been filed by those lawyers who were unsuccessful in the selection process carried out by the State in accordance with law. The PIL had been filed without first approaching the State with the grievances, if any, argued learned AAG.

The bench noted that in the other PIL, the following order had been passed:

“The Court shares the concern of the petitioners that the entire process should be more transparent and objective. While filing the affidavit, the endeavour of the State Government, in our opinion, should be to ensure that the process to be evolved henceforth does not lack transparency and objectivity. The said affidavit shall be filed within a period of six weeks after serving a copy thereof upon the learned counsel for the petitioners who shall file rejoinder affidavit by the next date of listing.”

The Court further relied on the State of U.P. and others vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and others wherein the Supreme Court had held that the State ‘may’ choose to consult with the Advocate General as to the appointment of lawyers on its panel.

“Every appointment made to a public office, howsoever made, is not necessarily, vested with public sanctity. There is, therefore, no public interest involved in: saving all appointments irrespective of their mode. From the inception, some engagements and contracts may be the product of the operation of the spoils system.”

Noting the observations above of the Apex Court, the bench headed by the Chief Justice observed

“The Apex Court thereafter proceeded to hold that the direction given by the High Court to the Government to continue the system of Brief Holders is unjustified and quashed the same. The Apex Court further set aside the order of the High Court quashing the fresh appointments and directing payments to the officers whose appointments were terminated.”

Accordingly, the PIL has been dismissed.

Case Title: Sunita Sharma and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271 [WPIL No. 1578/2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 271

Click Here To Read/Download Order