- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 6-9-1996 Annexure-6 to the writ petition by which the petitioners' appointment as Government Panel Lawyers in the District of Allahabad have been cancelled. The petitioner No. 1, Bhola Nath Shukia was appointed as panel Lawyer in the District Court Allahabad in 1982 and had continued to function as such till the date of impugned order dated 6-1-1996. True copy of his appointment order is Annexure 1-A to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that his performance and conduct has been excel lent and nothing adverse had been reported against him and this fact has not been denied in paragraph 11 of the counter-af fidavit. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, R. B. Lal and Ashok Kumar Chaurasia were ap pointed on 6-2-1990 vide Annexure-2 and the averment in paragraph 6 that their work had been excellent is also not denied in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner No. 1, Girish Chandra was Panel Lawyer form 18-10-1982 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the allegation in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that his work has been excellent has not been denied in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit. Petitioner No. 5, Shyam Jee Tandon was appointed in 1983 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the averment in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that his work had been excellent has not been denied in para graph 11 of the counter-affidavit. It is al leged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that all the petitioners had been con tinuously discharging their duties as Panel Lawyers from the date of their appoint mentsand their work, performance and in tegrity had always been upto the mark and nothing adverse had ever been reported against them. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is alleged that the District Magistrate and the District Judge, Al lahabad had recommended their names for renewal and this averment has not been denied in paragraph 14 of the counter-af fidavit. However, the petitioners were surprised to learn about the order dated 6-9-1996 that they have been removed from the Panel of Government Lawyers. The petitioners made a representation dated 13-9-1996 before the District Magistrate Al lahabad vide Annexure-7 and the District Magistrate has sent that representation to the State Government but to no avail. In the counter-affidavit the ground for removing the petitioners is that they had not been appointed by the State Govern ment.
(3.) IN my opinion, it is not open to the respondent to take up this plea after such a long time that the petitioners were not ap pointed by the State Government. As noted above, some of the petitioners were ap pointed as far back as in 1982and since then have continuously handled Government casesand it is surprising that suddenly now the stand is being taken by the respondents, that the petitioners initial appointment was invalid. In my opinion if the petitioner's ap pointment was made only one or two years back, I can understand the objection that their appointments were invalid because they were not made by the State Govern ment but to take up such a plea after a lapse of 14-15 years is wholly arbitrary and is hence violative of Article-14 of the Con stitution. I need not go into the question whether the initial appointments of the petitioners were made by the State Govern ment or not, because even if they were not so made the State Government, by permitting them to function for so long the State Government has acquiesced in their appointments or has impliedly ratified them.;