news details |
|
|
| HC restrains government to appoint fresh law officers except AG | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 29: Justice Sanjeev Kumar today restrained the government for fresh appointment of Law Officers (as defined in SRO 98 of 2016) except Advocate General. The order has been passed in a petition filed by one Sushil Chandel who is aggrieved of advertisement notice dated 11th of March, 2020, issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, inviting applications for engagement as standing counsel for various districts of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The petitioner is aggrieved of the selection criteria indicated in the impugned advertisement notice.
The petitioner, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notification for engagement of standing counsels in various districts of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir after framing selection criteria, which is fair, just and reasonable after framing selection criteria which is fair, just and rational.
Justice Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that the fact remains that the Rules of 2016 so framed by the then State of Jammu and Kashmir and deemed to have been in operation in the 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 the Rules) but the Rules of 2016 aforesaid do not law down any criteria or procedure of selection nor these Rules adhere to the directives and the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Brijeshwar Singh Chahal's case.
The court observed that in making the 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. Justice 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.
“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,” observed Justice Kumar.
He said 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
