The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held the State government appointing Advocate General (AG) or Law Officers in the Advocate General Office is an engagement of a professional whom professional fees is paid thus not entitled for reservation.
The high court dismissed the appeal filed by the OBC Advocate Welfare Association challenging the single judge bench order that dismissed their demand to give reservation for SC/ST/OBC categories in the appointment of Law Officers in the Advocate General Office.
The Association sought relief for reservation on grounds of provisions of Article 16(4) and M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, by the appellant.
A division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice AK Sharma observed ‘there is no employer-employee relationship between the State Government and the Advocate General/Law Officer in the Office of Advocate General’.
‘The Advocate General and all other Law Officers in the Office of Advocate General are not paid salary as is paid to the employees/officers in public employment’, the court order said.
‘The functions and duties discharged by the Advocate General or any other Law Officer in the Office of Advocate General are purely professional for which fixed professional charges are paid’, the court order said.
‘The Office of Advocate General is not a department under the State Government. The Office of Advocate General is neither created under any statutory authority nor constituted under any Act of the State and also under a University or a Company, Corporation or a Cooperative Society, in which at least 51% of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government. The Office of Advocate General is also not a private institution receiving grant-in-aid. More so, the Advocate General or Law Officer in the Office of Advocate General can never be treated as part of work charge or contingency paid establishment or casual appointment’, the court order said.
The division bench upheld the single judge bench order.
The single judge bench observed the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1994 will not be applicable because it only provides for reservation of vacancies in public services and posts and not in the matter of engagement of a counsel, which is purely a contractual and individualistic relationship. There is no violation of the provisions of M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994or of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court dismissed the appeal.
