Thirumavalavan case law officers case mhc order

🙏👆Important Legal Point (paras 13.14. 15)=

The relationship between the government and the Law Officer is purely a professional relationship and not that of a master and servant. The Law Officers engaged by the government, during their performance of the duty, are not holding any civil post. They are also not government servants and/or government employees. The appointment of these Law Officers is at the pleasure of the government. The sine qua non is that the Law Officers selected by the government should be duly qualified, competent and worthy to represent it. The determination of their engagement is also at the pleasure of the government. So also, the Law Officer engaged by the government has a right to terminate his services with the government. It cannot be said that their appointment is a tenure appointment.
As the Law Officers engaged by the government do not hold a civil post, nor the relationship of master and servant exists, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would not be applicable. The criterion to apply the reservation policy would not be attracted.
Reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Govindrao Namdeorao Shirsat v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2001) 4 LLN 178.
The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others, AIR 1996 SC 864, observed that the appointment of a legal practitioner as a District Government Counsel is only a professional engagement terminable at will and is not appointment to a post under the government.