S R PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 22-11-2006 in Writ Petition No. 15359/ 2006 which was allowed by the learned Single judge. The appellant is the second respondent in the Writ Petition. The second respondent was the petitioner in the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE second respondent Sri Rajashekar was appointed as Additional Government pleader vide Annexure-'a' order dated 30-5-2003. According to Annexure-'a' order, the appointment was for a period of three years from the date of the order or until further orders whichever is earlier. As per annexure-'b' order dated 12-4-2006, the appointment of Sri. Rajashekar as Additional Government pleader, Chikkodi, was continued for a period three years from 30-5-2006 or until further orders whichever is earlier. The Government, vide annexure-'c letter dated 24-8-2006 informed the District and Sessions judge, Belgaum, that the Government proposed to appoint Sri S. R. Patil, Advocate, (Appellant herein) as Additional Government pleader for a period of three years under Rule 26 (3) of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 and requested the District and Sessions judge to offer his opinion on the proposal. The district and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, through annexure-'d' letter dated 3-10-2006, informed the Government that Sri S. R. Patil, advocate, cannot be considered for appointment as Additional Government Pleader for three reasons. The first reason was that the term of Sri. Rajashekar who was then working as Additional Government Pleader had not expired and no fresh notification had been published inviting applications for the post. The second reason was that there were no complaints or allegations regarding the work and conduct of Sri. Rajashekar as Additional government Pleader. The third reason mentioned by the District and Sessions Judge, belgaum was that certain documents produced by one Sri. S. B. Majaji of Yamakanamardi, hukkeri Taluk, showed that Sri. S. R. Patil, who was a former Government Pleader, chikkodi, had contravened the orders of the court and had given wrong information to the court. The said documents produced by S. B. Majaji also were enclosed with Annexure-'d' letter for perusal of the Government. The District and Sessions judge, Belgaum, concluded annexure-'d' letter conveying his opinion that Sri. S. R. Patil may not be considered as additional Government Pleader, Chikkodi. However, Government issued Annexure-'e' order dated 31-10-2006 terminating the appointment of Sri. Rajashekar and appointing sri. S. R. Patil as Additional Government pleader, Chikkodi, for a period of one year from the date of taking charge of the post or until further orders whichever is earlier. It was also mentioned in the order that Sri. Rajashekar was entitled to one month's additional Retainer's Fee under Rule 5 (6) of the karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. It is seen from Annexure-'e' order that the appointment of Sri. Rajashekar was terminated in exercise of the powers under Rule 5 (2) of the said Rules and the appointment of Sri. S. R. Patil was made under Rule 26 (3) of the said Rules. Challenging Annexure-'e' order, Sri. Rajashekhar filed the Writ Petition praying to quash Annexure-'e' order and to direct the first respondent-Government to continue him as Additional Government Pleader. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ Petition observing that even though the petitioner's appointment was terminated under Rule 5 (2) of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service)Rules, 1977, there was no compliance with the said Rule as he was not given one month's notice or one month's retainer's fee in lieu of notice. Even though the Writ Petition was allowed, the learned Single Judge has clarified that it would be open for the Government to terminate the services of the petitioner in accordance with law.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned single Judge, Sri. S. R. Patil has filed this Writ appeal.