The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the State Government of Punjab to apply reservation policies and roster points to the office of Advocate General and other law officers. The court refused to issue any such direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
Date of decision: 4.11.2011
Tarsem Lal Advocate
..Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Secretary to the Government Punjab and others
..Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina
Present: Mr. Tarsem Lal, Advocate in person.
Rajiv Narain Raina,J
2
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
with roster points earmarked for direct recruitment. Further, on the strength of Section 4(2) of 2006 Act, it is submitted that the percentage of reservation for filling up vacancies by direct recruitment or by transfer in Group ”A” and Group “B” and Group “C” services have been fixed at 25 % for Scheduled Castes and 12% for Backward Classes. The petitioner has also submitted that he has made a representation (P11) to the Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab and Principal Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs, Law and Justice that his candidature for the post of Deputy Advocate General/Assistant Advocate General be considered positively in view of Sections 3 and 4, 4(5), 4(7) of the Act. He says he has also presented a separate memorial dated 28.4.2007 (P6) to His Excellency The Governor of Punjab, Chandigarh for taking punitive action against those responsible for not applying the Act to the Advocate General Office. The petitioner avers that he had moved the Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Castes regarding registration of case under the protection of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Commission by a letter dated 23.5.2007 had requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs, Law and Justice to submit facts and information to it within one month of receipt of the said letter. The State Government by its communication dated 29.8.2007 responded to that letter of the Commission. Reasons were given by the State Government to the Commission as to the inapplicability of the 2006 Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association reported as (1994) 2 SCC 204 was relied upon. In the petition itself, a part of para No.14 of the U.P. State Law Officers Association's case (supra) has been reproduced and it has been stated that the decision is “absolutely irrelevant so far as reservation policy is concerned.” A distinction has been sought to be drawn by Mr. Tarsem Lal, Advocate
3
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
appearing in person that judgment is inapplicable to the case in hand since it deals with a case of “brief holders” who were engaged by the UP Government to appear on its behalf in the High Court. It is argued that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not deal with appointments of Assistant Advocate General and Deputy Advocate General in the said case, the respondent State was wrong in rejecting the claim for reservation based appointments. Still further it is contended that the judgment is not an authority that reservation policy should or should not apply to the Advocate General Office, Punjab. We are afraid that the petitioner has misread the judgment. Para Nos.14 and 15 of the judgment are reproduced:-
“14. Legal profession is essentially a service-oriented profession. The ancestor of to-day's lawyer was no more than a spokesman who rendered his services to the needy members of the society by articulating their case before the authorities that be. The services were rendered without regard to the remuneration received or to be received. With the growth of litigation, lawyering became a full-time occupation and most of the lawyers came to depend upon it as the sole source of livelihood. The nature of the service rendered by the lawyers was private till the government and the public bodies started engaging them to conduct cases on their behalf. The government, and the public bodies engaged the services of the lawyers purely on a contractual basis either for a specified case or for a specified or an unspecified period. Although the contract in some cases prohibited the lawyers from accepting private briefs, the nature of the contract did not alter from one of professional engagement to that of employment. The lawyer of the
4
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
Government or a public body was not its employee but was professional practitioner engaged to do the specified work. This is so even to-day, though the lawyers on the full-time rolls of the government and the public bodies are described as their law officers. It is precisely for this reason that in the case of such law officers, the saving clause of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, waives the prohibition imposed by the said rule against the acceptance by a lawyer of a fulltime employment.
15. The relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. The client engages a lawyer for personal reasons and is at liberty to leave his also, for the same reasons. He is under no obligation to give reasons for withdrawing his brief from his lawyer. The lawyer in turn is not an agent of his client but his dignified, responsible spokesman. He is not bound to tell the court every fact or urge every proposition of law which his client wants him to do, however irrelevant it may be. He is essentially an advisor to his client and is rightly called a counsel in some jurisdictions. Once acquainted with the facts of the case, it is the lawyer's discretion to choose the facts and the points of law which he would advance. Being a responsible officer of the court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, the lawyer also owes a duty to the court as well as to the opposite side. He was to be fair to ensure that justice is done. He demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client. This relationship between the lawyer and the private client is equally valid between him and the public bodies.”
5
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
6
C.W.P. No.19914 of 2011
appoint law officers on reserve roster point and prescribed percentage of reservation in direct recruitment for Group A, Group B and Group C posts mentioned in the '2006 Act', in the absence of any legal instrument, rule, notification or bye law shown to us declaring the posts of Deputy Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General and classifying these posts in one of the said groups and still further that this Court should cause issuance of a mandamus to the State to include the said posts together with the Office of the Advocate General, Punjab lock, stock and barrel in the Act, 2006. We have no such power or authority.
(M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
November 4,2011 nk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel the State to apply reservation policies to the office of Advocate General.
Whether the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 is applicable to the office of Advocate General.
Whether the petitioner has any legal right enforceable against the State for appointment of law officers on reserve roster points.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers AssociationReferred¶3
State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association (1994) 2 SCC 204 · Who else cites this
Tarsem Lal
The Chief Secretary to the Government Punjab and others
Rajiv Narain Raina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
