Their term had also number been renewed after the expiry of the initial period of their appointment.
The High Court also quashed the order dated 26.5.1990 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.
Out of these, 9 law officers had been working for a long time, some of them for more than 15 years.
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.1990, the law officers who were removed from their posts, and aggrieved by the order of 26.5.1990, 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 officers only for valid reasons.
1994 1 SCR 348 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. Nos.
These appeals are, therefore, preferred by the State as well as those who were newly appointed by the State Government as its law officers.
He was further given power to distribute the work to the various Standing Counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutors.
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.
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.
Another 11 officers 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.
Their companytinuation as law officers was till further orders.
By an order dated 23.7.1990, the State Government removed 26 of the said law officers.
The High Court accepted the companytention of the law officers and by its impugned judgment, quashed the orders removing them from their offices.
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.
It appears that before issuance of the aforesaid order of removal dated 23,7.1990, the State Government had issued another order on 26.5.1990 by which the system of engaging Brief Holders in the High Court was abolished with immediate effect.
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, At the relevant time, there were 64 law officers working for the Uttar Pradesh State Government in the High Court of Allahabad including its Lucknow Bench.
14525 and 4912 of 1991.
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.
