2013 (12) TMI 1703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was authorized to take decision with regard to formation of new panel and/or selection of new Advocates to represent the Corporation both at Civil Courts and at High Court. Pursuant thereto, an advertisement was issued on 8.11.2012 and petitioner applied for being empanelled for representing the Corporation before this Court. Several others also made application. On 5.3.2013, they were invited for interview and then petitioner and some others were, accordingly, empanelled as panel lawyers. Petitioner's grievance is that no sooner the new Town Commissioner joined on 10.9.2013, the impugned Annexure-3 was issued by which, on the ground that the panel so made pursuant to advertisement dated 8.11.2012 had not yet been approved by the Empowe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hrilekha Vidyarthi & Others v. State of UP & Others since reported in MANU/SC/0309/1991 : (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212. There the Apex Court clearly held that in the spoil system that operates in respect of such discretionary appointments, Article 14 cannot be lost sight of. Thus, one has to see whether the action of the Municipal Commissioner is valid or not? Whether it is arbitrary or not? 4. From the facts noted above, it would be apparent that the only ground on which the panel has been cancelled is that panel was not approved by the Empowered Standing Committee. The fact is that there has been no disapproval in any manner. Who had to seek the approval? It was the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to have placed the matter for a....