22 Aug 2022 12:50 PM GMT
A Public Interest Litigation Plea has been moved before the Allahabad High Court challenging the recent appointments of state law officers alleging that the officers were appointed based on the recommendations of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).The PIL plea has been moved by Advocates Rama Shankar Tiwari, Shashank Kumar Shukla, and Arvind Kumar through Advocates Alok Kirti Mishra and...
A Public Interest Litigation Plea has been moved before the Allahabad High Court challenging the recent appointments of state law officers alleging that the officers were appointed based on the recommendations of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
The PIL plea has been moved by Advocates Rama Shankar Tiwari, Shashank Kumar Shukla, and Arvind Kumar through Advocates Alok Kirti Mishra and D.K. Tripathi, further alleging that out of 220 recently appointed officers, many are relatives of dominant politicians in the State and some are relatives of the Judicial officers and few are juniors or followers of Additional Advocate Generals in High Court.
The PIL plea also alleges that some Advocates who are not in regular practice in High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow nor in Lower Courts have been appointed as State Law Officer/ Brief Holder. It has also been stated that some Advocates who have not completed 5 years of practice have also been appointed as State Law Officers/Brief Holders (Civil and Criminal).
Against this backdrop, the PIL plea seeks to quash the appointments so made to the post of State Law Officers/ Brief Holders (Civil and Criminal) vide UP govt's August 1 Order and it also seeks a direction to the Government to publish a new list and make appointments based on the recommendation of a committee.
It may be noted that the PIL plea has contended that though the UP Govt had given an assurance to the Allahabad High Court that it shall follow the guidelines that have been laid down in the State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and streamline the working of the State Counsel at different levels, however, the plea says, the state failed to do so.
It may be noted that in the Brijeshwar Singh Chahal case, the Apex Court had laid down the guidelines on the selection of government lawyers. In this case, the Top court had elaborated upon the process of the assessment and selection of the candidate by the credible process.
It was opined that the State Government should appoint a committee of officers to carry out the appointment process. The Committee shall consist of Secretary to Government Law Department who is generally a Judicial Officer on Deputation with the Government as its Member Secretary.
It was also stressed that the committee can even invite applications from eligible candidates for different positions.
However, alleging the violation of the Supreme Court ruling in the appointments to the post of State Law Officers and Brief Holders ( Civil and Criminal ), the Plea submits that neither any application had been invited nor any committee had been constituted and from the back door such appointments were made in an illegal and arbitrary manner
"...while the list of Advocates was prepared, neither the undertaking given by the Opp. party no.2 on 07.07.2022 was followed nor the procedure for the appointment of State Law Officers has been followed nor has the Opp. party no.5 checked the appointment list of Advocates prior to signing the appointment list and due to this negligence several Advocates who have not completed full eligibility criteria have been appointed," the plea adds.
Consequently, the petitioners seek to quash the appointments so made and the constitution of a committee to make the appointment of the eligible Advocates as State Law Officer/ Brief Holder as per the judgment of State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal.
It further seeks initiation of the inquiry so as to find out the irregularities in the appointment of Advocates as State Law Officers/ Brief Holders (Civil and Criminal.)