The High Court also quashed the order dated May 26, 1990 passed by the State Government by which the Government had abolished the system of the engagement of Brief Holders and directed the respondents to companytinue the said system.
Their term had also number been renewed after the expiry of the initial period of their appointment.
The order also gave him financial and administrative powers which were earlier exercised by the Chief Standing Counsel and the Public Prosecutor.
By yet another order of June 28, 1990, the Government had authorised the Legal Remembrancer to appoint special companynsel for any special matter before the High Court.
In the companyrse of the judgment, the High Court has also made observations against the Legal Remembrancer.
There is numberdispute that in cases of all these 26 officers and indeed in cases of all the law officers appointed in the High Court, the terms of appointment companytained a companydition that numberwithstanding the period for which they were appointed, they companyld be removed at any time without giving any reason whatsoever.
The High Court further quashed all the fresh appointments made by the State Government and directed the payment of remuneration to the officers who were removed, from the date of their removal.
Another 11 officers out of the removed officers had been appointed in 1982 83 and they companytinued to work till the date of their removal without renewal of their term.
Incidentally, questions bearing on the profession of the lawyer, his relationship with his client, and the relationship of the Government and for that matter of all the public bodies with the lawyers they engage for companyducting their matters, also fall for companysideration.
Their companytinuation as law officers was till further orders.
These appeals are, therefore, preferred by the State as well as those who were newly appointed by the State Government as its law officers.
By an order dated July 23, 1990, the State Government removed 26 of the said law officers.
Aggrieved by the order dated July 23, 1990, the law officers who were removed from their posts, and aggrieved by the order of May 26, 1990, the then Brief Holders approached the High Court by a writ petition companytending, among other things, that their removal was against the principles of natural justice and that they companyld be removed from their offices only for valid reasons.
The High Court accepted the companytention of the law officers and by its impugned judgment, quashed the orders removing them from their offices.
Chapter V of the Legal Remembrancers Manual hereinafter referred to as the Manual deals with the Chief Standing Counsel and the Standing Counsel in the High Court and Chapter VI of the said Manual deals with Brief Holders in the High Court.
At the relevant time, there were 64 law officers working for the U.P. State Government in the High Court of Allahabad including its Lucknow Bench.
He was further given power to distribute the work to the various Standing Counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutors.
This group of appeals raises an important question with regard to the status of the law officers engaged by the State Government to companyduct the cases on its behalf in the High Court.
The remaining six law officers were appointed variously in March and May 1989 for a period of one year only with a stipulation that they companyld be removed any time without giving any reason whatsoever.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT,J. Leave granted in SLP Nos.
14525 and 4912 of 199 1.
It appears that before issuance of the aforesaid order of removal dated July 23, 1990, the State Government had issued another order on May 26, 1990 by which the system of engaging Brief Holders in the High Court was abolished with immediate effect.
Out of these, 9 law officers had been working for a long time, some of them for more than 15 years.
