Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by Shantreddy and Savithri, both advocates and government pleaders, challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent in each case as Government Pleader. The petitioners argued that the appointments were made without following the mandatory procedure under the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, specifically Rule 5 which requires consultation with the District and Sessions Judge and the Deputy Commissioner. The court examined the impugned orders and found that they did not indicate any such consultation. The court held that the appointments were invalid and quashed the orders. The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory rules in public appointments.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Government Pleader - Compliance with Statutory Rules - Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, Rule 5 - The court examined whether the appointment of the 4th respondent as Government Pleader was made in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, which requires consultation with the District and Sessions Judge and the Deputy Commissioner. The court found that the impugned orders did not reflect such consultation and were therefore invalid. Held that the appointment orders are quashed for non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the 4th respondent as Government Pleader was in compliance with the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, and whether the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders dated 07.10.2023 and 04.11.2023 appointing the 4th respondents as Government Pleaders.
Law Points
- Statutory interpretation
- Appointment of Government Pleaders
- Compliance with statutory rules
- Quashing of appointment orders
