1 981.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 981 WRIT PETITION NO. 6806 OF 2023 SHESHRAO ALIAS SHASHIKANT DATTSHETTI TUPTEWAR VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mukhedkar Amit Arunkumar Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI : Mr. Bangar Ravi Raosaheb Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 : Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Rakh Arun V. … CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 02.07.2026 PER COURT : . By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has made following prayers : “B)By issuing a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order of a like nature, the order dtd.3-5-2023 passed by respondent no.3-Dy. Managing Director (HR) and CDO of State bank of India (annexed at Exhibit 'H'), may please quashed and set-aside; C)By issuing a Writ of mandamus or any other order or writ of a like nature, the respondent nos.2 to 10 may please be directed to strictly follow guidelines framed in Circular dtd.26-3-2013 issued by respondent no.2-Deputy Managing Director of SBI Bank, so far as it relates to allotment of matters by State Bank of India to its panel Advocates by following rotation system; D) By issuing a Writ of mandamus or any other order or writ of a like nature, the respondent nos.2 to 10 may please be directed to strictly follow guidelines framed in Circular dtd.26-3-2013 issued by respondent no.2-Deputy Managing Director of SBI Bank, so far as it relates to allotment of matters by State Bank of India to petitioner, by following rotation system.” 2026:BHC-AUG:28637-DB 2 981.doc 2. By relying on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the Nagpur Bench in the case of Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande vs. Bank of Baroda reported in 2022 (5) ALL M.R. 196, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Chairman And Managing Director, UCO Bank vs. K. Marimuthu and Others in W.A. No. 2199 of 2023. 4. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the memo of the Writ Petition, the annexures thereto, and the decisions relied upon by the petitioner and the respondents. 5. The Madras High Court, in its decision in the case of Chairman And Managing Director, UCO Bank (supra), has made following pertinent observations : “12. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has laid down the scope and ambit of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well established that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role. For a public law remedy enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the actions of the authority need to fall in the realm of public law. The courts will not have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in a matter governed by contract, wherein public law element would not be involved. 13. The empanelment of lawyers by the banks cannot be on the 3 981.doc pedestal of an employment for holding a civil post. The lawyers empaneled by the bank are not governed by the service rules of the bank. The conditions of appointment of the empaneled lawyers are not governed by any statute, rules or regulations. 14. Article 16 of the Constitution of India would apply in matters of public employment or appointment to any office under the State. We may extend the concept of employment or appointment under the office of the State to the instrumentalities of the State also. However, for Invoking Article 16 of the Constitution of India, it will have to be demonstrated that the matter is in the realm of public employment or appointment to any office under the State. As the lawyers engaged by the bank 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. 15. Each bank has its own procedure for empanelment of the lawyers. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has referred to the circulars issued by the respective nationalized banks and public sector banks providing for the process of empanelment. The procedure prescribed in the said circulars contemplates the criteria for empanelment; process of empanelment; authority for empanelment; preparation of revised list by the zones; distribution/ allocation of works, other conditions for empanelment; review of the performance; parameters for reviewing the performance of the panel advocate; de-paneling of advocate; and review at head office level. 16. It would appear that the banks have laid down the procedure for empanelment. Certainly, the banks have to adhere to the said procedure. It would be stretching Article 16 of the Constitution of India too far to apply it for the empanelment of the lawyers by the banks. By not providing for the reservation in empaneling the lawyers, no provision of the Constitution of India is violated. 17.The relationship between the banks and the empaneled lawyers is purely a professional relationship and not that of a master and servant. The lawyers empaneled by the banks, during their performance of the duty, are not holding any civil post. They are 4 981.doc not government servants and/or government employees. The empanelment of lawyers is at the pleasure of the bank. The sine qua non is that the lawyers selected by the bank should be duly qualified, competent and worthy to represent it. The determination of their engagement is also at the pleasure of the bank. So also, the lawyer engaged by the bank has a right to terminate his services with the bank. It cannot be said that their appointment is a tenure appointment. 18. 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. 19. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 204, observed that the government and the public bodies engage the services of lawyers purely on contractual basis either for a specified case or for a specified or an unspecified period. The nature of the contract is one of professional engagement and not COPY of employment. 20. The Apex Court in a case of State of U.P. and another v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714, observed that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor/District Government Counsel is a professional engagement and not an appointment to a civil post. 21. This Court in the case of Thol. Thirumaavalavan v. The Principal Secretary, Department of Law, and others, 2024-1-Writ LR 1: 2024 (1) LW 353, held that reservation vertical and/or horizontal need not be provided while appointing Law Officers by the Government. 22. It also needs to be appreciated that the relationship between the advocate and his client is uberrima fides, i.e., one of active confidence and trust. The banks deal with public money. It is the obligation and the duty of the banks to protect the public money to its optimum extent and in the best possible manner. This duty mandates the banks to engage the most proficient, competent and capable persons to represent it. Ergo, in the selection of the 5 981.doc lawyers, the bank is duty-bound to make earnest efforts to choose the best. In empaneling the lawyers, merit ought to be the sole consideration.” 6. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court. The issue raised by the petitioner therefore, cannot be considered in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the citation relied upon by the petitioner, by relying on the guidelines issued in Chairman And Managing Director, UCO Bank (supra), in the facts of that case, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and interfered at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice. The said decision is rendered in different facts and, hence, has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. ) vsj..