The appointment of 30 law officers by the Union Environment Ministry turned out to be an embarrassing episode for the Centre after the Supreme Court on Thursday came across the Government’s circular that showed
how the names were cleared even as their CVs had not reached the Ministry.
The shocking state of affairs got exposed in the apex court during hearing of two petitions challenging the appointment of law officers by the States of Punjab and Haryana.
Taking serious view of how merit was given a go-by to appoint law officers appearing in courts and tribunals, the Bench of Justices TS Thakur and Kurian Joseph decided to settle the issue once and for all by laying down criteria to appoint law officers in Central and State Government offices.
The circular of the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated September 1, 2015 listed a panel of 30 names to represent the Centre before the National Green Tribunal. A line in the said notification read, “These advocates mentioned in the list are requested to send a copy of their resume indicating experience, detail address of correspondence, office communication with contact details, copy of enrolment certificate for finalising the fees payable to them as per guidelines of the Government of India.”
Faced with the document, the Bench asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to explain how appointments were made without asking for resumes. The order was produced in court by advocate Pradeep Kumar Rapria, a petitioner who had challenged the brazen manner of appointment of law officers in Haryana. Solicitor General claimed that he was not consulted on these appointments and sought time to seek instructions.
The document provided the necessary trigger for the bench at a time when it was shocked to see how Haryana and Punjab had appointed 183 and 174 law officers for a one-year term as Additional Advocate Generals, Deputy and Assistant Advocate Generals — posts which do not enjoy legal sanction but earn handsome sums to the appointees.
The bench noted, “There must be transparency in these appointments…they (law officers) must be men of merit and should not be because
of their political connections or the access and reach one
has to people in the ruling establishment.”
The Haryana Government admitted that these appointments followed no criteria and were left to the sole discretion of the Advocate General. The petitioners had argued that such appointments were a drain on public money and required to be curbed.