Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court delivered a significant ruling on 10 March 2021 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1518 of 2021, clarifying the nature of engagement and rights of Assistant Government Pleaders (AGPs) appointed by the State Government. The case addressed whether such legal officers can claim a right to continued engagement after expiry of their tenure or withdrawal of the government panel.

Two petitioners, both practicing advocates, challenged government orders dated 24 September 2020 and 1 October 2020 issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, and the Law Secretary, Law Department, respectively. Through these communications, the State cancelled the existing panel of government advocates who were conducting land ceiling, consolidation, and boundary dispute cases. The State decided to prepare a fresh panel based on updated qualifications, experience, and selection procedures.

The petitioners were part of the panel appointed through a notification dated 22 February 2012, which included several Assistant Government Pleaders and Special Government Pleaders for a tenure of three years. Their initial appointment letter clearly stated that they would receive fixed fees and that their engagement was tenure-based. After expiry of the three-year term in February 2015, their tenure was periodically extended until 31 March 2020, as the government could not complete the process of constituting a new panel.

In 2015, the government had invited applications for new appointments of Special and Assistant Government Pleaders, but the process was left incomplete. A subsequent advertisement in May 2018 also failed due to procedural and reservation-related issues. Ultimately, the State issued another advertisement on 2 January 2021 to constitute a fresh panel.

The petitioners contended that they had been discharging their duties efficiently for years and should not be removed in an “arbitrary” manner, especially since their last tenure extension had been approved until 31 March 2019. They argued that discontinuing their services without extension was unjustified and would cause professional hardship.

The High Court, however, dismissed their petition. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah held that the engagement of Assistant Government Pleaders is purely contractual and tenure-based. No vested right accrues to them for continuation beyond the specified term. The Court further clarified that such advocates do not hold a “civil post” under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the protections applicable to government servants do not extend to them.

To support this conclusion, the Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association [(1994) 2 SCC 204]*, which explained that government law officers are professionals engaged on a contractual basis, not employees. Their appointments can be terminated without assigning reasons if the contract so provides.

The apex court had observed that the relationship between the State and its law officers is professional, not that of employer and employee. It emphasized that government panels should be formed through open and merit-based selection but cautioned that lawyers appointed through non-transparent or arbitrary methods cannot claim a perpetual right to continue. The Supreme Court succinctly noted: “Those who come by the back door must go by the same door.”

Following this precedent, the Patna High Court held that the State Government has every right to revise its panel and appoint new advocates, provided the process is fair and merit-based. The previous panel members, including the petitioners, cannot claim automatic extension or reappointment.

The Court concluded that since the petitioners’ appointments had expired and were contractual, no fundamental or statutory right was violated. Nevertheless, it granted them the liberty to apply afresh in response to the new advertisement issued by the State in January 2021.

In essence, the Court reaffirmed that government panel advocates serve at the discretion of the State for fixed terms and cannot seek judicial enforcement of continuation once the tenure ends.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment holds practical importance for both the legal community and the administration.

For Government Advocates:
The ruling makes it clear that being appointed as a government law officer does not create a permanent or regular post. Advocates are engaged on a professional, contractual basis for limited terms. They cannot insist on extension or continuity as a matter of right.

For the State Government:
The decision affirms the government’s discretion to restructure and renew its legal panels. It also reinforces the obligation to ensure transparency and merit-based selection while appointing advocates to represent public interests.

For the Judiciary and Legal System:
The judgment reiterates professional ethics within the legal service to the government, ensuring that appointments are not treated as employment but as professional engagements. This distinction preserves independence and accountability among advocates representing the State.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether Assistant Government Pleaders hold a “civil post” under Article 311 of the Constitution?
  • Decision: No. The Court held that Assistant Government Pleaders are not government employees but contractual professionals. Hence, Article 311 protections do not apply.
• Whether AGPs have a right to continue beyond their tenure?
  • Decision: No. Their appointment being contractual and tenure-based, they have no vested right to continue once the term expires.
• Whether the cancellation of the existing panel and creation of a new one was arbitrary?
  • Decision: No. The government’s decision to reconstitute a panel is within its discretion and in public interest, provided it follows fair procedure.
• What is the legal relationship between government and its law officers?
  • Decision: It is a contractual professional relationship, not an employment relationship.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association, (1994) 2 SCC 204 — relied upon by both parties and discussed in detail by the Court.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Association, (1994) 2 SCC 204 — Supreme Court judgment explaining the contractual nature of government law officers’ engagement and the principle that such appointments confer no right to continue.

Case Title

Petitioners v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1518 of 2021

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 386

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad
• For the State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General

Link to Judgment

MTUjMTUxOCMyMDIxIzEjTg==-UVo5I6JZQNU=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.