- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. GURUSWAMY S/O LATE SIDDAVIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/A ANANDA SADANA, CONVENT HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR FOREST NURSERY, SIDDARATH NAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGAR – 571 313. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASHWATNH NETHAJI.NT., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMINISTRATION-2), VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA – 571 313. 4. SRI. R.ARUN KUMAR, S/O LATE A.RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE, R/A NO.271, YASHA DODDARAYANAPETE GRAMA AND POST OFFICE, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.SRINIVAS., FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO PARAGRAPH NO.11 (b) AND 11(d) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.6306/2025 DATED 05/06/2025 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This appeal, filed by the appellant/petitioner, challenges the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6306 of 2025, which was partly allowed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Chamarajanagar District invited applications for the appointment of District Government Pleader as per Rule 26 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1977’). 3. The procedure prescribed under the said Rule 26, in essence, requires consultation with the District Judge before appointing District Government Pleaders (DGP) or Additional DGPs. The opinion of the District Judge regarding an advocate's experience and suitability is crucial. An appointment made without such consultation is legally defective. This rule ensures that experienced lawyers are selected for these crucial government roles at the district level. While the District Judge's opinion is not binding, it is mandatory to obtain it. 4. As per the prescribed procedure, the Deputy Commissioner is required to invite applications from eligible practicing advocates. These applications are then to be forwarded to the concerned District Judge along with the Deputy Commissioner's remarks on the candidate's suitability. Upon receipt, the District Judge must forward the applications - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 to the Government in the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, appending his own remarks regarding the suitability of each candidate. The Government is thereafter required to make the appointment, having regard to the remarks of both the District Judge and the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The petitioner, respondent No. 4, and others applied for the post. Following the procedure under Rule 26, the competent authority recommended 11 names, appending remarks on the suitability of each. Respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 1, while the petitioner/appellant was at Serial No. 9. The appointment was for a period of three years or until further orders. 6. The Government, for reasons best known to it, overlooked candidates at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and appointed the petitioner (at Serial No. 9) as the District Government Pleader for Chamarajanagar District. Subsequently, respondent No. 4, aggrieved by being overlooked, filed a representation before the Government. Upon considering this representation and the relevant records, including the remarks of the District Judge and the Deputy Commissioner, the Government decided to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 cancel the petitioner's appointment and instead appointed respondent No. 4. This cancellation order dated 28.02.2025 was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. This Court has been informed that the learned Single Judge called for the records. The Additional Advocate General produced the entire file. Upon perusal, and considering the fact that a candidate at Serial No. 9 was appointed while those at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 were overlooked, the learned Single Judge set aside the appointments of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4. He directed a fresh exercise for the appointment of the District Government Pleader for Chamarajanagar District in accordance with the Rules, 1977. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner's appointment was subject to the doctrine of ‘pleasure’, the exercise of this doctrine to terminate his appointment before three years must be based on reasons recorded before the termination. He contends that no reasons were communicated, rendering the termination order dated 28.02.2025 arbitrary. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 9. On the other hand, Sri Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4, submits that the Government has the prerogative to appoint a person to defend its interests, and no one can force themselves upon the Government as its counsel. In the present case, the initial appointment of the petitioner at Serial No. 9, overlooking higher-ranked candidates, was itself irregular. Therefore, the Government, in its wisdom and after considering all facts, rightly corrected the anomaly by appointing the candidate at Serial No. 1. 10. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. Instead of setting aside only the petitioner's appointment, he has rightly set aside the entire irregular selection process and directed a fresh exercise in accordance with the law. Consequently, this writ appeal is dismissed. 11. However, we direct the Government that in the fresh appointment process, selections must be made strictly on the basis of merit, without being influenced by any extraneous pressure. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47908-DB WA No. 951 of 2025 12. It is open for the learned counsel for the petitioner, along with all other eligible candidates, to apply afresh whenever applications are invited for the said post. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA