CWP-116-2017
SYNOPSIS
"The present
Petition raises the substantial question of the Law of the interpretation of
the Constitution and general importance: Whether the Legislature is empowered
to make a Statute to circumvent or negate the law declared by the Supreme Court
& High Court?
The relevant facts
culminating into the present petition are that the Petitioner being a
practicing Advocate before this Hon’ble Court had challenged the legal vacuum in
the selection/engagement of the Law Officers/Advocates in the Advocate General
Office. On the Petitioner’s plea his CWP pending before this Honourable Court was
transferred to the Honourable Supreme Court and decisive directions were issued
to the States of Punjab and Haryana in specific and other states in general
were advised to the effect that:- “other States would do well to reform
their system of selection and appointment to make the same more transparent,
fair and objective…” The thrust of the Apex Court directions is
that the State Govt. ‘States shall constitute a Selection Committee… The
Committee shall on the basis of norms and criteria conduct selection of law
officers for the State and submit a panel of names to the Chief Justice of
Punjab and Haryana who may set up a Committee of Judges to review the panel and
make recommendations to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may based on any
such recommendations record his views regarding suitability of the candidates
included in the panel. The Government shall then be free to appoint the candidates
having regard to the views expressed by the Chief Justice regarding their merit
and suitability’
Now, the State of
Haryana has passed the HARYANA LAW OFFICERS (ENGAGEMENT) ACT, 2016, which
clearly appears to be passed with a view to negate and circumvent the law
declared by the Honourable Supreme Court, wherein the consultation process with
the Judiciary has been completely hoodwinked. Hence, the present petition with
a view to maintain the dignity of Law Profession and Rule of Law.
PRAYER
HEAD NOTE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUING WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE HARYANA LAW OFFICERS (ENGAGEMENT) ACT, 2016 AND RULES FRAMED
THEREUNDER (ANNEXURE P-3)
BEING ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND
ALSO ULTRA VIRES THE SECTION – 24 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
1973, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN
PARDEEP KUMAR RAPRIA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, TRANSFER PETITION NO.
1073 OF 2015 (ANNEXURE P-1)
FURTHER, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE
THE OFFICE RECORD TO SEE THE STEPS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE GUIDELINES FRAMED BY
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN TRANSFER PETITION TITLED PARDEEP KUMAR RAPRIA
Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, T.P. (C) NO.1073 OF 2015, DECIDED
ON:30.03.2016 (ANNEXURE P-1).
GROUNDS:
(1)
BECAUSE the internal file
notings/office notes provided by the State Govt. vide RTI reply dated
16.09.2016 clearly indicate that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
were not even discussed, looked into or considered at all; before passing the
Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2016 and Rules framed thereunder.
(2)
BECAUSE RTI reply dated 16.09.2016 reveals
that no assessment of the need/work-load of Advocates in the AG, Office was
carried out.
(3)
BECAUSE in contravention
to the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court the Respondents has validated
the earlier selections; which were found disproportionate to the workload, by
the CAG.
(4)
BECAUSE the Specific
direction dealing with Statutory consultation with the Judiciary (Chief
Justice) has been completely ignored.
(5)
BECAUSE all the
selections prior to the enactment of the Haryana Law Officers (Engagement) Act,
2016, which made in an arbitrary, discriminatory manner without following any
norms or policy have been validated.
(6)
BECAUSE proviso to the
Section-6 of the newly enacted Act gives arbitrary powers to the Advocate
General to engage 5 lawyers of his choice, without following any
procedure.
(7)
BECAUSE Section-14 and Section - 17 provides
for the Engagement or extension of Law Officers in the office of Advocate
General appointed before the commencement of the Act shall not be affected.
(8)
BECAUSE as per the directions of the
Honourable Supreme Court the selection committee was supposed to send the list
to the Chief Justice of Hon’ble High Court, but the same has been completely
ignored in the Act and Rules.
(9)
BECAUSE the newly enacted law has defeated the
laudable object of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(10)
BECAUSE Haryana government has admitted in an
affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a total of 183 Lawyers had been
selected by the state government as law officers in the office of state
Advocate General Haryana and no procedure was laid down for their selection of
law officers.
(11)
BECAUSE in the democracy, the government
cannot behave like a King, who can give benefit to any person as per his whims
and fancies.
(12)
BECAUSE a majority of the
Law Officers (in the AG Office) are kith and kin of ministers, political
leaders, senior bureaucrats, police officers and MLAs of ruling party in the
State.
(13)
BECAUSE a fair and
objective system of appointment for the appointments as envisioned by this
Hon’ble Court has been defeated."
No comments:
Post a Comment