State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. J.K. Panth and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt

rajasthan revenue board (appointment & conditions of service of law officer) rules - rule 6--no notice served terminating service--new appointment order not mentioning appointment as dy. govt. advocate and no direction to hand over charge--held, there is no error in order of single judge to warrant interference;admittedly, no notice was served upon either of them under rule 6 of the rules terminating the appointment. it is also not mentioned in the subsequent order annex.-7 appointing new advocates as deputy government advocates that the appointment of the petitioner-respondents has been terminated or directing them to hand over the charge to the newly appointed dy. government advocates;we do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned single judge, warranting our interference;special appeal dismissed with costs - - -l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the rules including rule 6. we do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned single judge, warranting our interference......appointed dy. government advocates. rule 6 of the rules specifically requires that the appointment of a government advocate shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice of one month in writing. in their appointment order dated june 05, 1985 (annex.-l), it is clearly mentioned that their appointment is governed by the rules including rule 6. we do not, therefore, find any error in the order of the learned single judge, warranting our interference. the facts and circumstances of harpal singh chauhan v. state of u.p. : 1993 crilj3140 are quite different and distinguishable. it does not help the appellants.6. accordingly, the special appeals are dismissed with costs. however, the state government is at liberty to terminate the appointment of the petitioner-respondents in accordance with law and not to assign any work to them till their appointments are terminated.