MADHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners are advocates practising at Thalassery Bar. They are 'Government Law Officers' coming within the purview of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Being aggrieved by the proposal for immature termination of their services they approached this court in the present proceeding to galvanise their case and to seek redressal. As per the terms of appointments the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till 18.10.1998, 26.3.1998 and 24.7.1998 respectively. The petitioners 1 and 2 are Additional Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors and the third petitioner is the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor. On an earlier occasion they came before this court in O.P. No. 13138 of 1996 praying for a direction to restrain the first respondent, the Government of Kerala, from taking any steps to terminate their services. When the above Original Petition came up for hearing on 27.9.1996, a statement had been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that they have not taken any decision to terminate the services. This Court; after recording the said statement closed the said Writ Petition.

(2.) Subsequently, the Government issued Ext. P5 notification on 11th October, 1996 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (19 of 1968) amending 'the Rules' referred to above. By the said amendment a new proviso is sought to be substituted in R.17 deleting the existing proviso. Apprehending immediate termination in view of the amended rule, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to strike down R.17 of the Rules. They also prayed for a declaration that the first respondent, the Government of Kerala have no manner of right or authority to terminate the services of the petitioners purporting to be in exercise of the powers under R.17 of the Rules as amended by Ext. P5 notification without assigning any reason whatsoever.

(3.) Before adverting to rival contentions the background of the above amendment may be taken note of. The Explanatory Note attached to Ext. P5 notification itself is self explanatory and hence it is ectyped hereunder.