The Telangana High Court has held that while empanelment does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment as a Government Pleader, the Government cannot arbitrarily discard an already prepared panel and substitute it with a fresh one without giving reasons or without following a fair, transparent and legally sustainable process. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94]

Allowing a writ petition filed by an advocate whose name was omitted from a revised panel for appointment as Government Pleader, Justice N. Tukaramji observed that from the statutory framework, it is evident that the role of the District Judge and the District Collector in the process is recommendatory in nature. It said:

"However, even within such a framework, the exercise of power must conform to settled principles of administrative law. The absence of a formal recruitment process does not dilute the obligation of the State to act fairly, transparently, and reasonably. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure or arbitrary exercise of discretion would render the action vulnerable to judicial review. The Government, though vested with discretion either to appoint from the panel or call for a fresh panel, must exercise such discretion on cogent, rational, and legally sustainable grounds. The power to seek a fresh panel cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner so as to defeat an already completed process without justification

Although the petitioner does not possess a vested or enforceable right to appointment... he nevertheless has a constitutional right to fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary consideration in the selection process. The action of the respondents in disregarding the first panel and preparing a revised panel in a manner suggestive of undue haste is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice."

The Court accordingly set aside the revised panel to the limited extent it affected the petitioner's right to be considered for appointment and directed the authorities to undertake the selection process afresh.

The petitioner, a senior advocate who had previously served as Assistant Government Pleader at Jangaon, contended that his name had been included in the first panel prepared by the District Collector and the District Judge for appointment as Government Pleader before the Principal District Court, Jangaon. However, without cancelling or superseding the first panel, the authorities allegedly prepared a second panel excluding his name and recommending advocates with comparatively lesser experience.

He argued that no fresh notification was issued, no fresh applications were invited and no opportunity was afforded to him before he was excluded from the revised panel.

The State defended the process, contending that the petitioner had been discontinued pursuant to a policy decision of the Government and that the revised panel had been prepared after verification of candidates' antecedents. It was further submitted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts relating to a pending criminal case against him and that Respondent No.4 had thereafter been appointed as Government Pleader.

The respondents also argued that inclusion in a panel does not confer any vested or enforceable right to appointment and that appointments of law officers fall within the executive's discretionary domain.

The Court agreed that under the Supreme Court's decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, mere inclusion in a select panel does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. However, it held that the process of selection must nevertheless satisfy the constitutional requirement of fairness under Article 14.

Referring to G.O.Ms. No.187 dated December 6, 2000 governing appointments of law officers, the Court observed that although the Government retains discretion either to appoint a candidate from the panel or to call for a fresh panel, "such discretion is circumscribed by procedural safeguards and the requirement of fairness."

The Court further observed that "the power to seek a fresh panel cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner so as to defeat an already completed process without justification."

Examining the record, the Court found it significant that the petitioner's alleged adverse antecedents were already known to the authorities when the first panel was prepared and forwarded to the Government. Despite such knowledge, his name had initially been recommended.

The Court noted that within an unusually short period thereafter, the authorities sought a fresh panel, obtained it the very next day, secured antecedent verification within two days and finalized the revised panel in what it described as an "extremely compressed timeframe."

According to the Court, this sequence of events "raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness and fairness of the process."

The Court further found that there was no material to show that the first panel had ever been formally superseded, that reasons had been recorded for discarding it, or that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to explain the alleged adverse material relied upon for his exclusion.

Holding that the absence of these procedural safeguards vitiated the decision-making process, the Court concluded that although the petitioner had no right to appointment, he did possess a constitutional right to be considered through a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary process.

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to reconsider the appointment to the post of Government Pleader, Principal District Court, Jangaon, strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.187 and constitutional principles, after affording a fair opportunity to all eligible candidates, including the petitioner and the selected candidate.

The Court clarified that it was not directing the appointment of the petitioner and that the competent authority would remain free to independently assess the merit, suitability and antecedents of all candidates before taking a fresh decision.

Case Title: Varikota Ramgopal v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 31400 of 2024

Appearance: Mr. C.M.R. Velu for the petitioner; Assistant Government Pleader for Legislative Affairs for respondent No.1; Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2; Mr. K. Laxmaiah for respondent No.4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 94