The High Court negatived the said companytention holding i Having regarding to Article 367 of the Constitution of India as also Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the provision in singular for appointment of an Advocate General would include plural ii Having regard to the fact that Additional Advocate Generals have been appointed in the States of Rajasthan, Jammu Kashmir and Kerala, there is numberreason as to why Additional Advocate Generals cannot be appointed in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The authority of a State to appoint Additional Advocate General in terms of Article 165 of the Constitution of India is the companye question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.13202 of 1998.
In support of its findings, reliance has been placed on M.K. Padmanabhan vs. State of Kerala 1978 1 LAB.I.C. 1336 Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur vs. Sitaram AIR 1993 Rajasthan 76 and Bhadreswar vs. S.N. Choudhury AIR 1985 Gauhati 32.The appellants herein filed the aforementioned writ petition questioning the appointment of two Additional Advocate Generals by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on various grounds.
and iii Merely because there is a post of Additional Advocate General, the same would number mean and imply that Additional Advocate General can perform the companystitutional statutory functions.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.14098 of 1998 N.KHARE, CJI.
Leave granted.
