L.N. NARASIMHAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions who are appointed as District Government Pleaders/Additional Government Pleaders (hereinafter referred to as 'Pleaders' short) have called in question their orders of removal and appointment of private respondents in their place.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

(3.) The petitioners claim to have discharged their duties with utmost devotion and integrity which led their tenure to be extended for a second term of three years with effect from the date on which the first term would come to an end. Therefore, the petitioners in all these cases had their term extended for a further period of three years from the year 2018 and would come to an end on various dates in the year 2021. The initial term and the extended term of the petitioners are as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_142_LAWS(KAR)2_2021_1.html</FRM> In terms of the afore-extracted chart, the term of the petitioners as stated herein above, was to end on completion of three years term from the month of January 2018. In the month of May 2018 there was a change in Government in the State of Karnataka which led to a Notification being issued on 17-10-2018 removing the petitioners from the posts of Pleaders and appointing the private respondents in these cases as Pleaders in place of the petitioners. This was called in question in Writ Petition No.47687 - 690 of 2018 which was initially filed challenging the action of removal of the Pleaders/petitioners therein. The petitioners in that writ petition claimed that respondents 1 to 3/Government therein filed its statement of objections to the interim prayer for stay of the Notification removing the petitioners from the posts of Pleaders. In the statement of objections the Government contended that consultation with the District Judge as required under Rule 26(2) and Rule 26(3) of the Rules was mandatory. In those petitions it was further contended that the State Government had lost trust, faith and confidence and grant of any interim order would frustrate and harm the interest of the respondent/State Government. On the statement of objections filed by the respondents/Government the petitioners contend that this order, though passed under sub-rule (6) of Rule 26 of the Rules, it is an order which casts a stigma and is passed under sub-rule (5) of Rule 26 of the Rules which requires an enquiry to be conducted if the order were to be really stigmatic.