5 months ago
73
Holding that the rule of reservation need not be followed in the appointment of law officers, the Madras High Court on Thursday said merit must be the sole criterion for such appointments as the government is duty-bound to engage only the most proficient, competent and capable lawyers to represent it before the courts of law.
Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy wrote: “The relationship between the government and the law officer is purely professional and not that of a master and a servant. Since law officers engaged by the government do not hold a civil post, Article 16(4) of the Constitution will not be applicable.”
The verdict was delivered while dismissing a public interest litigation petition filed by VCK leader Thol. Thirumavalavan in 2017 insisting upon transparency and adequate representation for women, the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe and the minorities in appointment of law officers.
Petitioner’s counsel M. Palanimuthu argued that the Appointment of Law Officers of the High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules, 2017, were framed in a bid to ensure transparency in such appointments, but they had failed miserably to provide vertical as well as horizontal reservation. Relying upon a few government orders, the counsel said that the rule of reservation must be applied even to contractual as well as temporary appointments barring those that were to last for less than 45 days.
He insisted that the 2017 rules be declared unjust and arbitrary since they do not provide for reservations.
On the other hand, Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram argued that the post of law officer was not a civil post and a lawyer could not be considered as a government employee. Every law officer was a professional practitioner engaged by the government to do a specific work by using his/her legal expertise, he said. Relying upon the Supreme Court verdict in Indra Sawhney’s case (1992), wherein it was held that it might not be advisable to provide for reservation for performance of duties in certain services and positions, the A-G said the post of a law officer was one such position that must be exempt from the rule of reservation.
Concurring with his submissions, the Division Bench said: “The relationship between an advocate and his/her client is uberrima fides, i.e., one of active confidence and trust.” Since the government was obligated to protect public interest, such duty mandates it to make earnest efforts to engage only the best lawyers.
“In view of that, while selecting the law officers, merit ought to be the sole consideration.... The methodology has to be transparent and the invitation of applications should be broad-based so as to enable the government to select the most competent, capable and meritorious lawyers to represent it as law officers,” it added.
Authoring the verdict, the Chief Justice said: “Neither the law officers are appointed to a civil post nor are they employees of the government. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be held that reservation, be it vertical/horizontal, needs to be provided while appointing law officers by the government.”
