Case Note & Summary
The case concerns the abrupt withdrawal of an appointment as Additional District Government Pleader at the newly established XI Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi, sitting at Athani. Following the establishment of the court on 06-07-2024, a regular government pleader was needed. The petitioner, a practicing advocate since 1999, applied for the post on 09-10-2024. Correspondences between the District Judge and the Department of Law and Justice culminated in a notification dated 28-10-2025 appointing the petitioner for a term of three years or until further orders. The petitioner assumed charge and appeared in several matters the same day. However, the very next day, 29-10-2025, another notification withdrew the appointment and appointed the third respondent. The petitioner alleges that the third respondent had not applied and that political influence led to the withdrawal, making the action arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The State and the third respondent argue that the appointment is at the pleasure of the Government under Rules 26 and 28 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, and therefore no right accrues to the appointee, allowing withdrawal at any time. The court, after hearing the parties, identified the central issue as whether the impugned action withstands the constitutional prohibition against arbitrariness. The provided text ends after describing the appointment notification of the petitioner; the final reasoning and order are not included.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Arbitrariness and Pleasure Doctrine - Constitutional Prohibition Against Arbitrariness - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14; Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, Rules 26, 28 - The petitioner, appointed as Additional District Government Pleader, had his appointment withdrawn within 24 hours and the third respondent appointed in his place. The State defended on the ground that the appointment is at the pleasure of the Government and can be withdrawn at any time. The Court examined whether the withdrawal violated the constitutional prohibition against arbitrariness. The final order is not contained in the provided text. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Does the withdrawal of appointment of the petitioner as Additional District Government Pleader within 24 hours and substitution by third respondent violate the constitutional prohibition against arbitrariness, given the pleasure doctrine under the Karnataka Law Officers Rules?
Law Points
- Pleasure doctrine does not shield arbitrary withdrawal
- appointment under Rules 26 and 28 of Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1977
- constitutional prohibition against arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- writ of certiorari for quashing illegal notification
