GOVINDRAO NAMDEORAO SHIRSAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present petition, the petitioner is asking for the relief that the respondent-State be directed to amend Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the purposes of brevity); by providing reservation of seats for various Backward Classes and Tribes, while making the appointments of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. In the alternative, he has asked for the relief in the nature of declaration of Rule 11 as unconstitutional and for striking down the same. He has also prayed the appointment of the respondent No. 2 (now deleted) as Government Pleader in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, be cancelled. Along with the above-said reliefs, the petitioner also has asked for certain ancillary reliefs.

(2.) TO understand the case of the petitioner and to find out his entitlement for reliefs he has asked for, it would be necessary to narrate the facts of the case, in short.

(3.) PETITIONER, a Scheduled Caste candidate, is practising as an Advocate and is resident of Aurangabad. He claims to be "mahar" by caste. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner had completed about 11 years of his practice in various courts, referred to in his petition including the High Court. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was desirous of working as a Government Pleader or Additional Government Pleader in the High Court or as a Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor in the same Court or as a District Government Pleader/assistant Government Pleader, in the District Court, Aurangabad.