State of Rajasthan and Another vs J.K. Panth and Others

Milap Chandra Jain, J.—These two special appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated July 27, 1993 by which he has allowed the writ petitions and declared that the petitioners continue to be Deputy Government Advocates in the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer till their tenure is brought to an end.

The facts of the case giving rise to these special appeals may be summarised thus. The petitioners Shri J.K. Panth, Advocate and Shri Jai Kishan Purohil, Advocate were initially appointed as Deputy Government Advocates for the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer on 30.07.87 and 05.06.85, respectively. Their term of appointment was extended from time to time. On March 03, 1991, the last extension was granted on the same terms and conditions with effect from 01.03.91 till further orders vide order Annex.- 6. The petitioner Shri Jai Kishan Purohil, Advocate was not allowed to work after July 15, 1991 by the Government Advocate, Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the petitioner Shri J.K. Panth, Advocate worked till June, 1993. Thereafter; they filed the writ petitions. The State Government seriously opposed them. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and passed the impugned order.

It is contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the petitioner-respondents have no right to continue as Dy. Government Advocates in the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and in support of his contention he places reliance on Harpal Singh Chauhan and others Vs. State of U.P., He further contends that after the initial period of appointment had expired, applications were invited for appointment as Deputy Government Advocates, the petitioner-respondents also applied and their names were in the reserve list and not in the select-list.

In reply, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that it is clear from the order No. F.5(48)Rev./Gr.- I/77 dated march 04, 1991 (Annex.6) that the tenure of appointment of the petitioner-respondents was extended till further orders on the same terms and conditions with effect from March 01, 1991, admittedly no notice was served upon them terminating their appointment as required under Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Revenue Board,(Appointment & Conditions of Service of Law Officers) Rules (in short, ''the Rules'') and it is also not mentioned in the order No. F.5(43)Rev./Gr.I/77 dated 29.06.91 (Annex.-7) appointing others as Deputy Government Advocates that the petitioner-respondents would hand over the charge to them.

There is no substance in the special appeals. It is clearly mentioned in order No. F.5(48)/Rev./Gr.I/77 dated march 04, 1991 (Annex,-6) that the tenure of appointment of the petitioner-respondents is extended from March 01, 1991 on the same terms and conditions TILL FURTHER ORDERS. Admittedly, no notice was served upon either of them under Rule 6 of the Rules terminating the appointment. It is also not mentioned in the subsequent order Annex.-7 appointing new Advocates as Deputy Government Advocates that the appointment of the petitioner- respondents has been terminated or directing them to hand over the charge to the newly appointed Dy. Government Advocates. Rule 6 of the Rules specifically requires that the appointment of a Government Advocate shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice of one month in writing. In their appointment order dated June 05, 1985 (Annex.-l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the Rules including Rule 6. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge, warranting our interference. The facts and circumstances of Harpal Singh Chauhan and others Vs. State of U.P., are quite different and distinguishable. It does not help the appellants.

Accordingly, the special appeals are dismissed with costs. However, the State Government is at liberty to terminate the appointment of the petitioner-respondents in accordance with law and not to assign any work to them till their appointments are terminated.