PURNENDU BIKASH DHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Purnendu Bikash Dhar, petitioner in person and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the Union of India. Mr. S.M. Chakroborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

(2.) The petitioner Shri Purnendu Bikash Dhar by order dated 30th July, 1999 was engaged as Senior Central Government Standing Counsel in the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court for conducting cases. The appointment was for a period of three years or until further orders whichever is earlier. The petitioner has been discharging his functions honestly, diligently as a Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. All of a sudden by order dated 8th May,2000, the petitioner's engagement as a Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has bee terminated with immediate effect. No reason whatsoever has been assigned or communicated to the petitioner in his termination order. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said termination order as arbitrary, unreasonable irrational act, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. By way of this present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said order.

(3.) Both the respondents viz. Union of India and the new Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri P.K. Dhar, have defended the petitioner's termination order. The present writ petition is not maintainable. The Government has a discretion for engaging Advocates for the panel of Government standing counsel. It is a trust and confidence which place an important role for engagement of an Advocate to conduct cases on behalf of the Government, so long as the Government has confidence in the counsel engaged in a particular case. The appointment of the petitioner is neither public employment nor it is governed by the statutory rules. The petitioners engagement and termination as a Central Government Standing Counsel is governed by the Office Memorandum No.F.26(l)/99-Judl dated 24th September, 1999 issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India. Clause 4 where of provides that such appointment shall be for the period of three years or until further orders whichever is earlier and is terminable at any time without assigning any reason. Under the aforesaid Clause 4, the petitioner's engagement has been terminated. The termination of the petitioner as Central Government Standing Counsel is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is necessary to reproduce the petitioner's engagement order dated 30th May, 1999 and the termination order dated 8th May, 2000, the relevant portions which are as under: Engagement Order