KISHOR M GADHAVE PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

(2.) Petitioners are functioning as Additional Government Pleaders / Additional Public Prosecutors / Assistant Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors in the High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. According to petitioners, tenure prescribed under their appointment orders has not expired and would come to an end in June 2016 and thereafter, but for the reason mentioned in the order impugned in this matter, issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 30(5) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984, (for short, "Rules of 1984"), their appointment came to be terminated before completion of prescribed tenure.

(3.) Petitioners claim that they have been appointed in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1984 by the Respondents and Notifications, in that regard, have been issued in respect of 14 Law Officers on various dates i.e. 05.10.2013, 09.02.2013, 20.10.2013, 09.06.2014, 05.06.2014, 16.08.2014, etc.. According to petitioners, on 13.10.2014, 14 posts of Additional Government Pleaders/Assistant Public Prosecutors had fallen vacant and as such, Government took a decision to continue the Law Officers until further orders. In the meanwhile, an advertisement came to be issued for making appointment of Law Officers on 13.10.2014, but the process initiated for selecting Law Officers in pursuance to the said advertisement was not pursued.