Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a circular issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, terminating the appointments of all Government Counsel across the state, effective from February 28, 1990. The petitioners, who were appointed as Government Counsel, challenged the validity of this circular, arguing that their relationship with the government was akin to public employment rather than a mere contractual engagement. The High Court had previously dismissed their petitions, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court. The State contended that the appointments were purely contractual, allowing for termination at will without cause. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, determining that the Government Counsel held a public office, which required adherence to the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found that the circular lacked a reasonable basis and was arbitrary, as it applied uniformly to all Government Counsel without consideration of individual circumstances. The Court emphasized that the State's actions must be informed by reason and that arbitrariness negates the rule of law. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petitions, invalidating the circular and reinforcing the necessity for fairness in State actions, particularly in matters involving public office. The decision underscored that even contractual relationships involving the State must comply with constitutional mandates of fairness and reasonableness.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fairness in State Action - Requirement of fairness in State action under Article 14 - The termination of Government Counsel's appointments was arbitrary and lacked discernible principles, thus violating Article 14 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The Court held that the relationship of Government Counsel with the State is not merely contractual but involves public elements, necessitating fairness in termination (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned circular terminating the appointments of Government Counsel was arbitrary and amenable to judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, invalidating the circular terminating the appointments of Government Counsel, finding it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Article 14
- fairness in State action
- arbitrariness
- public office
- judicial review
- contractual obligations
