The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case observed and has issued notice to the State, Ministry of General Administration and Law and Legislative Affairs of the State on a batch of pleas challenging the appointment of the Government Advocate and two AGPs allegedly made against the provisions of AP Law Officers, the Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000.
It has been contended by the petitioner or party that the persons in question do not have the minimum required standing with the bar of 5 years and the advocate who was appointed to the post of Government Pleader was not registered with the Bar at Andhra Pradesh High Court as it is mandated under the 2000 Instruction.
The court observed that the Special Government Pleader per contra relied upon the 2003 judgement of the case State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pushpendar Kaur, wherein the court held that the guidelines for appointment were not statutory in nature, but executive.
The court held that the advocate appointed by the Government shared an attorney-client relationship and the Government was at liberty to appoint who it thought appropriate.
The bench headed by Justice B. krishna Mohan in the case observed and has issued the notice to the Advocate General under his capacity as a representative of the State, the Ministry of General Administration and Law and Legislative Affairs of the State.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances stated that the purpose of going into the averments made by the party in person in all these three writ petitions, the counters of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are required.
The court stated that the party in person has also been granted liberty to serve notice to the Advocate General in his personal capacity and the advocate appointed to the post. Thus, the issuance of notices to the respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 5 from the Registry is deferred for the present, which can be considered after filing of the counters by the official respondents as it also lacks prima facie substantiation of allegations made against them.
However, the party-in-person insisted to take out personal notice.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on February 08, 2024.
The counsel, party in person, Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, S. Sriram, Advocate General represented the respondent.
