Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved at the termination of his services as a Panel Lawyer of the State. The Petitioner is practising at the bar since January, 1964. In response to an invitation issued by the District Magistrate of Pilibhit, the Petitioner applied in April, 1969, for being appointed to the post of Panel Lawyer in the district of Pilibhit. After considering the various applications and the recommendations of the District Magistrate and the District Judge, Pilibhit, the State Government on 10 -7 -1969, appointed the Petitioner as a Panel Lawyer for a period of one year from the date of his taking over charge. The Petitioner took over charge on 16 -7 -1969. On or about 7 -10 -1969, the Petitioner was informed by the District Magistrate that the Government had terminated the Petitioner's appointment.
(2.) THE Petitioner states that his work in the short period of 2 1/2 months was highly satisfactory. His work was not considered unsatisfactory either by the District Magistrate, or the District Judge, or even by the Government. The action of the Government in terminating the Petitioner's services abruptly has been alleged to be malafide and based on irrelevant considerations. It has also been stated that Para. 156 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual prescribes the conditions upon which alone the services of a Panel Lawyer can be terminated. That paragraph has also been violated. The impugned order has been challenged on three principal grounds: (1) That the order violates the equality clause of Article 16 of the Constitution; (2) That Para. 156 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual has statutory force. The impugned order violates Clause (8) of Para. 156; (3) That the impugned order violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
(3.) ARTICLE 16(1) of the Constitution says that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. This Article applies to an office under the State. Para. 2 of the Legal Remembrancer's Manual gives a list of the Law Officers of the Government. Serial No. 1 mentions the Advocate General. Serial No. 10 mentions Panel Lawyers. The other entries relate to Government Advocates, Standing Counsel, Prosecuting Inspectors, etc. Para. 156 of the Manual, which relates to Panel Lawyers (as amended by correction slip No. 1 -A/54), says that a panel lawyer can be appointed after inviting applications from practising lawyers and considering the recommendations of the District Magistrates and the District Judges as well as the Legal Remembrancer. The Government selects a Candidate after considering these recommendations. The selected candidate is then appointed as a Panel lawyer. The appointment can be for a period of three year or less. The term of a Panel lawyer may be renewed for a further period of three years if his work has been found to be satisfactory. A Panel lawyer receives fees at the rate of Rs. 16/ - per day. Clause (8) of Para. 156 states that the Government may remove the name of any Panel lawyer from the list if his work is reported or considered to be unsatisfactory, without assigning any reason therefor. This will show that the appointment can be terminated for good cause only, though the order may not assign any reason. This provision would show that the appointment of a Panel Lawyer is not like the engagement of a practising lawyer by a litigant for conducting a particular case of his in a court. This is an appointment, which is to last for a certain period of time on payment of a regular fee per day, irrespective of the quantum of work done on a particular day.;