HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 14534 OF 2011 . DATED 22nd JUNE, 2011. BETWEEN K.Subbarayudu …Petitioner And The Govt. of AP, rep. by its Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 14534 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Government Pleader for Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri under G.O.Rt.No. 2079, Law (L) Department, dated 03.12.2004 for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of the post. The petitioner assumed the charge of the said post on 16.12.2004 and the term of the said post came to an end on 15.12.2007. However, vide proceedings in Rc.C1/1109/2004, dated 12.12.2007 of the second respondent, the petitioner was ordered to continue as Assistant Government Pleader, Kanigiri until a new Assistant Government Pleader is appointed. In regard thereto, the Government vide orders in G.O.Rt.No. 272 Law (L3) Department, dated 19.02.2009 again appointed the petitioner as Assistant Government Pleader for Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri for a period of three years or upto the termination. As the petitioner has continuously worked for a period of six years from 16.12.2004 to 17.05.2001, following the instructions contained in the provisions under Instruction 8 of A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, the second respondent in exercise of powers conferred by the Government, terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Government Pleader for Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kanigiri, vide proceedings dated 17.05.2011, impugned in this Writ Petition. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. While reiterating the details of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Government Pleader, the first respondent has stated that the order of reappointment reveals that it is a continuation of his first appointment; the petitioner, at the time of issuing the orders for second term, is continuing in the post without any break from 16.12.2004 till the date of issuing impugned proceedings, and for strict compliance of the provision contained in Instruction 8 of A.P. Law Officers ( Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, the Government issued instructions in Memo No. 915/LSP/RL/L2/02, Law, dated 01.07.2002 clarifying to terminate the engagement of Law Officers who had completed six years of service including the period worked on incharge basis. It is further stated that as the petitioner had continuously worked as Assistant Government Pleader right from 16.12.2004, the question of assuming charge after the appointment for the second term does not arise and his second term deemed to have been commended from the date of expiry of the first term i.e. 16.12.2007 and denied the contention of the petitioner that his term is for a period of three years from 19.2.2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raising several grounds submitted that the impugned order of the second respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice and opposed to very spirit and object of the provisions of the of A.P. Law Officers ( Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000; that the said instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No. 187, dated 6.12.2007 deal with only the mode open for the authorities to fill up the posts of Law Officers and that the term of office of the petitioner has not expired by virtue of G.O.Rt.No. 272, dated 19.02.2009 basing on which his appointment tenure is for three years with effect from 19.02.2009. Refuting the said contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the counter allegations made in the counter affidavit submitted that the order impugned passed by the second respondent is valid and sustainable in the eye of law. In support of her contentions, she relied on the decisions of this Court in K.Rama Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (WA.No. 834 of 2003, dated 20.05.2003), K.Issac Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No. 4057 of 2003, dated 24.4.2003), S.Nagaraja Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 4582 of 2002), A.Nagarjuna Vs. Government of AP (W.P.No. 10667 of 2004, dated 22.11.2005) and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Johri Mal (2004 (4) SCC 714). Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner merit no consideration. It is clear from the factual matrix that in strict compliance of the provisions contained in Instruction 8 of A.P. Law Officers ( Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000, the Government in Memo No. 3709/11/2002, dated 23.05.2002 issued instructions not to continue any Law Officer who is holding the office for the second term on expiry of term of office and that in such cases where the name of such law officer is again proposed for the third term or not, on expiry of the term of such law officer he shall be placed near by Law officer in full additional charge instead of continuing the same law officer until further orders are passed appointing the same law officer for a third term or new law officer as the case may be. Further, the Government issued instructions to the respective District Collectors in the State in Memo No. 915/LSP/RL/L1/02, dated 01.07.2002 to terminate the engagement of a Law Officer appointed in Subordinate Courts after expiry of period of six years in office at a stretch either by way of appointment in successive terms or where a law officer is initially appointed for a period of three years and thereafter he is continued on in-charge basis for a further period. From the above it is obvious that the engagement of a Law Officer appointed in a Subordinate Court has to be terminated after expiry of period of six years in office at a stretch either by way of appointment in successive terms or where a Law Officer is initially appointed for a period of three years and thereafter continued on incharge basis for a further period of three years. In such cases, some alternative incharge arrangements would be made. In the instant case, the petitioner has continuously worked as Assistant Government for the said Court for a period of six years from 16.12.2004 till the date of passing the impugned order terminating his services. Further, in the second term order vide G.O.Rt.No. 272, dated 19.02.2009, while the petitioner was being reappointed as Assistant Government Pleader for the said Court, it was specifically stated that his term of office was for a period of three years or till the termination by the Government. In as much as the petitioner has completed six years period as Assistant Government Pleader, by virtue of the Memo No. 915/LSP/RL/L2/02, dated 01.07.2002, which was issued in keeping with the strict compliance of the provisions contained in Instruction 8 of A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000 by the Government directing the District Collectors to terminate the services of the Law Officers who have completed the term of six years period, the second respondent issued the impugned order, which in my considered opinion, is valid and sustainable in the eye of law. The contention of the petitioner that by virtue of G.O.Rt.No. 272, dated 19.2.2009, the term of his appointment as Assistant Government Pleader (Law Officer) is for a period of three years with effect from 19.3.2009 cannot be countenanced for the reasons stated supra. More so, the decisions supra relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Home supports the case of the respondents in its entirety. Viewed from any angle, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd June, 2011. Msnro