Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1212 (KAR)

Basappa Mallappa Shirur v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-24

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2020
JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The learned Addl. Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The top noted writ petition is fi led seeking writ of certiorari to quash the noti fication dated 09.06.2020 issued by the State Government vide Annexure-D. 3. Facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under: The petitioner has fi led the top noted writ petition by contending that he was appointed as Additional Government Pleader for the Senior Civil Judge Court, Yelburga, Koppal District on 16.10.2015 for a period of three years or ti l l the further orders whichever is earl ier. The petitioner completed his term of three years as Additional Government Pleader to the best satisfaction of Government. It is also averred in the writ petition that he was also conferred with additional charge of Senior Civil Court, Kushtagi, Koppal District by noti fication dated 07.07.2017. Considering the petitioner's service as Additional Government Pleader, he was further appointed for a period of three years on 15.10.2018. Thereafter the State Government has issued impugned noti fication dated 09.06.2020 by terminating the petitioner from the post of Additional Government Pleader by appointing the 4th respondent to the same post. 4. The said noti fication is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that his termination is contrary to Rule 5(6) of the Karnataka Law Of ficers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 ("the Rules" for short). The petitioner has also challenged the impugned noti fication on the ground that the appointment of 4th respondent is not in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 26(1) & (2) of the Rules. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri D.L.Ladkhan would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the impugned notification suffers from serious material irregularities, since it is in contravention of Rule 5(6) of the Rules. His grievances before this Court is that the petitioner is terminated without fol lowing mandatory procedure contemplated under Rule 5(6) of the Rules, which states that, before termination a one month prior notice or one month retainer fee is to be given to the Additional Government Pleader before terminating his service and there is a infraction of this Rule. 6. His grievances before this Court is that the petitioner is terminated without fol lowing mandatory procedure contemplated under Rule 5(6) of the Rules, which states that, before termination a one month prior notice or one month retainer fee is to be given to the Additional Government Pleader before terminating his service and there is a infraction of this Rule. 6. Per contra learned Additional Advocate General would take this Court to impugned noti fication and submits to this Court that there is a compliance of Rule 5(2) of the Rules. She would bring it to the notice of this court that the petitioner is given one month retainer fee. In that view of the matter, there is no infraction of the Rule prescribed under Rule 5(2) of the above said Act. She would also submit to this Court that, the 4th respondent has already taken charge and hence she would submit to this Court that the petitioner cannot seek redressal of his grievances by way of a right. 7. To buttress her arguments she would also rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.R.Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2007) 6 KarLJ 405 (DB). 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for State. 9. The grievances of the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent/State has terminated his service without affording an opportunity of hearing and as such there is infraction of the Rule 5(6) of the Rules, and as such, the same would warrant interference by this Court. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given one month notice in writing as required under the Rules. For better understanding, the relevant Rule 5(6) of the Rules is culled out as under: "5. Appointment of Law Officers.- (6) Save as otherwise provided in subrule (5) and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the State Government may terminate the appointment of law Officer without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing or by giving one month's retainer in l ieu of such notice." 10. On plain reading of the above said Rule, it is clearly evident that the State Government may terminate the appointment of Law Officers either by giving a one month notice in writing or by giving one month retainer fee in l ieu of such notice. On plain reading of the above said Rule, it is clearly evident that the State Government may terminate the appointment of Law Officers either by giving a one month notice in writing or by giving one month retainer fee in l ieu of such notice. The impugned notification clearly indicates that the petitioner is given one month retainer fee in l ieu of such notice. This Court is of the view that the order under chal lenge does not suffer from any infirmities and there is no infraction of Rules. 11. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court clearly indicates that the relationship between the Government and the Government Advocate is fiduciary in character and the Government Advocate can hold the office only during the pleasure of the Government and also in the l ight of terms and conditions of appointment, it is open to the Government to terminate the appointment under Rule 5(2) read with Rule 5(6) of the Rules, even before the expiry of period of appointment. It is also borne out from the records that the petitioner was in fact given an extension of three years, which would have expired in the year 2021. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order under chal lenge does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.