The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.30767 of 2011 Date: 22nd November, 2011 Between: V.Krishna Paramatma ..... Petitioner and 1.Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao for Mr.Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr.K.Satyanarayana Murthy, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 29-10-2011, of respondent No.2 and consequential proceedings dated 14-11-2011, of respondent No.3. The petitioner was appointed as Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) at Machilipatnam for a period of two years by the Managing Director of Respondent No.1- Corporation. It is his pleaded case that even after expiry of the two- year term, he was being continued without any order, in writing, extending his term. By Office Order, dated 29- 10-2011, the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.4 as Standing Counsel for the Corporation at Machilipatnam, for a period of two years, in the place of the petitioner. A consequential proceeding was issued by respondent No.3 on 14-11-2011 requesting the petitioner to handover all the pending cases to respondent No.4 on 19-11-2011. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has pleaded that appointment of respondent No.4, without following the procedure of calling of panel from the District Judge is illegal. Except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, he has failed to refer to, much less place before the Court, the provisions governing the appointment of Standing Counsel in Respondent No.1- Corporation. It is trite that a client has unfettered right to choose his Counsel. Even though respondent No.1 is an instrumentality of the State, while standing in the position of a litigant, such a right cannot be restricted save by the Rules or Regulations, if any, governing such appointments. Admittedly, the petitioner’s tenure had expired more than three years back and he had the benefit of being continued even without there being any order in writing extending his tenure. The petitioner, who belongs to the noble profession, is not expected to place fetters on the discretionary right of the Corporation to choose its own Counsel. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any of his legal rights have been infringed while choosing respondent No.4 as its Counsel. With the expiry of the term of the petitioner as Standing Counsel, all his rights to continue as Standing Counsel get extinguished and it would then be within the realm of discretion of the Corporation to choose its own Counsel. In the premises as above, I do not find any merit, whatsoever, in this Writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.38160 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd November, 2011 LUR