STATE TIMES NEWS JAMMU: In a significant order passed on Tuesday, Justice Sanjeev Kumar restrained Govt from making fresh appointment of Law Officers (as defined in SRO-98 of 2016) except Advocate General. The order was passed in a petition filed by one Sushil Chandel, aggrieved of advertisement notice dated March 11, 2020, issued by Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, inviting applications for engagement as Standing Counsel for various districts of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner also felt aggrieved of selection criteria indicated in impugned advertisement notice. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for directions to respondents to issue a fresh notification for engagement of Standing Counsels in various districts of Union Territory of J&K after framing selection criteria, which is fair, just and reasonable. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, after hearing both the sides, observed that fact remains that the rules of 2016, so framed by the then State of Jammu & Kashmir and deemed to have been in operation in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir as well, only provide for eligibility requirements for being appointed as Advocate General, Additional Advocate Generals, Deputy Advocate Generals and Government Advocates in the High Court, Advocates on Record and Additional Advocate Generals in the Supreme Court of India, Public Prosecutors, Standing Counsels in the High Court and the subordinate Courts and Special Counsel (collectively known as ‘Law Officers’ in rules) but the Rules of 2016 do neither lay down any criteria or procedure of selection nor these Rules adhere to the directives and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal’s case. In absence of fair, just and transparent procedure of selection prescribed, the respondents have been indulging in pick and choose method and most of engagements are motivated by political and other considerations. “I have also noticed that in making appointment of Public Prosecutors in District Courts as well as in High Court, the statutory provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not complied with. I am not aware whether the respondents have appointed Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors for prosecuting its criminal cases in the High Court or not. It is also not made known to me whether Additional Advocate Generals, Deputy Advocate Generals or Government Advocates have been ex-officio appointed as Public Prosecutors/Additional Public Prosecutors as well. These are some of the issues which need determination by an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench. It may be noted that the petitioner has neither himself applied nor does he seek his appointment/engagement as a Law Officer, either at the district level or in the High Court. He appears to have come to the Court virtually in a representative capacity raising issues of seminal importance affecting his legal fraternity and the administration of justice,” he observed. In so far as challenge to the impugned selection criteria is concerned, it is pointed out that impugned selection criteria laid down in the advertisement notice itself though within discretion of the respondents and, prima facie, not found bad yet would pose practical difficulties in its application. Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that some of the issues which have been raised in this petition, particularly with regard to sustainability of SRO 98 of 2016 and also those which cropped up during hearing of the matter, are, in my opinion, issues of great public importance. “The quality of assistance rendered to the court has direct impact on the quality of justice delivered. It is, therefore, of essence that the advocates who represent State/UT in civil as well as criminal matters are of sterling quality. Poor assistance from either side particularly from Government side, which is the biggest litigant in courts, affects administration of justice. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the policy of engagement of Government lawyers at all levels deserves fresh look and it is imperative that these engagements are merit based and do not fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution Of India. In the aforesaid backdrop, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be treated as ‘PIL’ suo moto and directed that this matter be placed before the Chief Justice for its enlisting before the appropriate Bench in terms of Rule 24 (8) of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1997,” the Court observed, and ordered that in the meanwhile, it is provided that till the matter is considered by the PIL Bench, there shall be no fresh appointment of Law Officers (as defined in SRO 98 of 2016) except Advocate General.
