Sandeep Kumar Srivastava and Anr. v. Union of India

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following prayers: SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)

2. The petitioners in the present petition have averred that despite their application for appointment as a Panel Counsel for the Union of India being forwarded to the respondent, the list issued by the respondent, containing details of selected empanelled counsels for the year 2022 to 2024 failed to record their names.

3. It is submitted that vide letter dated 14.10.2021, a fresh recommendation was forwarded to the respondent for appointing the petitioners as empanelled counsel. However, again, despite several followup/representations, the concerned authority failed to add names of the petitioners in the final list of Panel Counsel for the respondent.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a written representation on 01.09.2022, requesting the respondent to include their names in the final list of empanelled counsel for the year 2022 to 2024. However, the representation has neither been responded to nor any action has been initiated / undertaken by the respondents to update the list as requested.

5. In the aforesaid conspectus, the petitioners have filed the present petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid discrepancy has infringed upon their rights enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is violative of the principle of natural justice.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, relying upon judgments rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajinder Nischal vs. Union of India through its Secretary &Anr.,2023:DHC:4420-DB and order dated 31.10.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P(C) 14106/2023 titled as ‘WG CDR RETD V.S. Tomar Advocate vs Union of India and Ors.’ submits that the State is free to appoint advocates of its own choice and no one has a vested right to claim any empanelment or to continue in a panel.

7. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I find merit in the contention of the respondent that the present challenge is precluded by the judgment of the Division Bench in Rajinder Nischal vs. Union of India through its Secretary &Anr (supra) and WG CDR RETD V.S. Tomar Advocate vs Union of India and Ors (supra).

8. A bare perusal of order passed by this Court in WG CDR RETD V.S. Tomar Advocate vs Union of India and Ors (supra) brings out that the issue agitated by the petitioners in the present petition is similar to the issue which has already been considered therein. The petitioner in that case inter-alia sought a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, for inclusion of his name in the Panel of Counsels for the Union of India across various courts and tribunals. The contention of the petitioner therein was also that the decision to not include his name in the list of Panel Counsel is completely arbitrary and affects his reputation. The said petition was dismissed by observing as under:

the Government wishes to engage. No person should claim that he must be selected by the Government. The reliance placed on Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case, the judgment was passed by the Apex Court while hearing a transfer petition and the question that was raised in the Apex Court was as to whether the appointment of law officers by the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed on the ground that the same are arbitrary, hence, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the transfer petition was filed for the transfer of a Writ Petition which was challenged by a person who was initially appointed as Assistant Advocate General by order dated 23.04.2002. The appointment was on contractual basis and it was valid till to 31.03.2003, but the same was continued till 31.03.2004 by an order dated 19.07.2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner therein was appointed as Deputy Advocate General in the pay scale of Rs 18,40022,400/- by order dated 11.01.2008 and his tenure was later extended up to year 2011-2012. It is also pertinent to mention that the law officers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, from where the issue before the Apex Court arose, are entitled to a monthly salary and one of the allegations made by the Petitioner therein was that a number of Law Officers are without work and are only receiving the salary, which, according to the Petitioner therein, was idle salary. Therefore, the challenge before the Apex Court was for a post.

9. As the Petitioner has not been able to show any right, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications, if any. In the present case the challenge is for the mode of empanelment of lawyers and not appointment of lawyers to a post. In the present case, there is no salary which is attached to the post of a Panel Counsel. A Panel Counsel is paid on the basis of appearance. It is purely the discretion of the Government to engage a lawyer of its choice to represent it before the Courts.

9. Furthermore, in Rajinder Nischal vs. Union of India through its Secretary &Anr (supra) a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing a petition challenging the method of empanelment of Advocates to represent the Union of India, inter-alia, observed as under:

lawyer to represent him and the Government of India, which is one of the largest litigant in the country, has the freedom to appoint its own lawyers. This Court is of the view that the present petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation.