STATE OF M.P. Vs. KOSHY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the State of M.P. and its functionaries have called in question the defensibility of the order dated 10 -11 -2000 contained in Annexure P -10 passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 5674/2000 and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same and further to declare that the transfer of respondents 1 to 5 to newly constituted State of Chhattisgarh is legal, justified and impregnable.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the respondents 1 to 9, the employees of the office of the Advocate General assailed the decision provisionally allotting them to the State of Chhattisgarh approached the Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was contended before the Tribunal that out of total strength of sixteen employees eleven had been transferred which was much greater than the ratio prescribed for the transfer of the employees to the new State of Chhattisgarh. It was urged that the Advocate General is a Constitutional functionary who is required to discharge his duties independently but without consulting him the employees have been proposed to be allotted to the new State. It was also putforth that certain officers have been allotted to the State of Chhattisgarh though there was no justification for the same.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid order it is contended in the writ petition that the entire establishment of the Office of the Advocate General at Jabalpur and that in Gwalior and Indore are part of the office of Department of Law and Legislative Affairs and there is no separate set -up or otherwise establishment for the office of the Advocate General. These are the employees of various categories working in Class -II though they are working in the office of the Advocate General fundamentally they are ministerial staff of the State Government and at no stage relating to appointment, transfer or termination there is provision for obtaining any consent or concurrence of the Advocate General. It is putforth that the decision is taken by the competent authority of the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. Emphasis has been laid on the provisions of M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (for brevity 'the Act') to highlight that there is no provision in the said enactment conferring any special role to the employees in the office of the Advocate General. Justification has been given how the allocation had taken place and role of Central Government in the matter of allocation. It has also been putforth that many an employee of the office of the Advocate General, Jabalpur and that in Gwalior and Indore has joined in the new State of Chhattisgarh. It is also contended that the Tribunal has misconceived the entire legal position in respect of the office of the Advocate General and issued a direction which is totally unsound.