Article 14 requires transparent, merit-based appointment of State law officers; ad hoc selection and vague norms are impermissible.

Appointment of State law officers is a public function subject to Article 14, so the process must be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective. The Court held that a realistic assessment of need is a first prerequisite, and found the existing appointments were made ad hoc without workload assessment. It also found no definite scheme, norms or merit-based procedure, with selections left to informal recommendations and discretion. The Court therefore required a structured process for future appointments and extensions, including a selection committee, prescribed criteria and consultation with the Chief Justice or a committee of judges, while leaving existing appointments undisturbed for their current term.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the States had made a realistic assessment of the requirement before appointing law officers; (ii) whether the States had formulated any scheme, policy, norms or standards for appointing law officers; (iii) whether appointment of law officers by the State Governments had to be made on a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective basis; and (iv) what directions were required if the first three issues were answered in the negative.

Issue (i): whether the States had made a realistic assessment of the requirement before appointing law officers

Analysis: A realistic assessment of need was treated as the first prerequisite for appointment of law officers. The materials placed before the Court showed that appointments were made on an ad hoc basis, without correlation to workload or any proper manpower assessment. The Court also relied on the Comptroller and Auditor General's findings to show that a large number of law officers had remained without work, resulting in idle salary expenditure.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the States and in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the States had formulated any scheme, policy, norms or standards for appointing law officers

Analysis: The affidavits filed by the States disclosed that there was no definite statutory or otherwise prescribed procedure, no selection or search committee, no consultation with the High Court in the ordinary course, and no disclosed norms for merit-based assessment. The process was left to informal recommendations and discretionary impressions, which the Court found inconsistent with a fair and credible system of appointment.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the States and in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): whether appointment of law officers by the State Governments had to be made on a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective basis

Analysis: The Court treated the State and public bodies as trustees of public power and held that appointment of government counsel, though contractual in form, has a public element. Article 14 was applied to hold that arbitrariness has no place in State action, and that appointments affecting public interest and administration of justice must be guided by reason, merit, fairness and transparency. The Court drew support from the principles governing appointment of public prosecutors and held that selection must demonstrate a search for the meritorious, free from political or extraneous considerations.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iv): what directions were required if the first three issues were answered in the negative

Analysis: In light of the defects in the existing system, the Court framed corrective directions requiring a realistic assessment of need, constitution of a Selection Committee, formulation of norms and criteria, and consultative review by the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Committee of Judges. Existing appointments were not disturbed for the remainder of their term, but extensions and reappointments were made subject to the new process. The Court also clarified that the State's power to appoint an Advocate General remained unaffected.

Conclusion: The Court issued binding directions for future appointments and extensions of law officers, while leaving existing appointments undisturbed for their current tenure.

Final Conclusion: The judgment subjected appointment of State counsel to constitutional standards of fairness and transparency, held the prevailing system in Punjab and Haryana to be deficient, and mandated a structured, merit-based and consultative procedure for future appointments and extensions.

Ratio Decidendi: Appointment of State counsel is a public function subject to Article 14, and any selection process for such appointments must be transparent, objective, merit-based and free from arbitrariness or extraneous considerations.

---