Bombay High Court
Govindrao Namdeorao Shirsat vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 25 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)BOMCR543
Author: R.G. Deshpande
Bench: R.G. Deshpande
JUDGMENT R.G. Deshpande, J.
1. Through the present petition, the petitioner is asking for the relief that the respondent-State be directed to amend Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the purposes of brevity); by providing reservation of seats for various Backward Classes and Tribes, while making the appointments of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. In the alternative, he has asked for the relief in the nature of declaration of Rule 11 as unconstitutional and for striking down the same. He has also prayed the appointment of the respondent No. 2 (now deleted) as Government Pleader in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, be cancelled. Along with the above-said reliefs, the petitioner also has asked for certain ancillary reliefs.
2. To understand the case of the petitioner and to find out his entitlement for reliefs he has asked for, it would be necessary to narrate the facts of the case, in short.
3. Petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, is practising as an Advocate and is resident of Aurangabad. He claims to be "Mahar" by caste. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner had completed about 11 years of his practice in various courts, referred to in his petition including the High Court. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was desirous of working as a Government Pleader or Additional Government Pleader in the High Court or as a Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor in the same Court or as a District Government Pleader/Assistant Government Pleader, in the District Court, Aurangabad.
4. It is necessary to mention that during the relevant period, original respondent No. 2 Shri J.V. Sawant, was appointed as a Government Pleader by the respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra, to work as such in the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The petitioner in his petition, challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as a Government Pleader on various grounds. However during the pendency of this petition in the year 1989, the petitioner deleted the name of the respondent No. 2. He also deleted the names of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 who, according to the petitioner, were instrumental for respondent No. 2's appointment as a Government Pleader. In view of this deletion, the various allegations against the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 which are referred to in the petition, now, are not required to be gone into, for the purposes of the decision of the present petition. The petitioner was, however, permitted to amend his petition by an order dated 19-2-1987; whereby he amended the petition by adding paragraphs 16A to 16D. This Court is now, therefore, called upon to give its decision on the grounds which are raised by way of amendment.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that there were directions issued by the State of Maharashtra to all the Government authorities to provide certain percentage of reservation for the Backward Classes, not only at the stage of recruitment but also at the stages of promotions. According to him, necessary concessions with regard to the relaxation of age in the service are also required to be given in favour of those candidates. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the aims and objects of the Constitution of India, the principles of equality as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution are to be observed even in the matter of appointment as Government Pleader or Assistant Government Pleader and Public Prosecutors. He argued that to avoid the possibility of any discrimination as is contemplated under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, reservation should have been provided for in the matter of their appointments. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Government Resolution No. BCC/1072-J dated 3-5-1974. He has also placed on the record a Government Circular bearing No. BCC/1078-XVI-B dated 31-5-1979 which, according to the petitioner, is a comprehensive Circular covering all aspects of service matters pertaining to Backward Classes and precisely dealing with the point of reservation. On the basis of these documents alone, the petitioner contended that it was incumbent on the State to have kept appropriate percentage of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and for Other Backward Classes which, according to the petitioner, is lacking in the Rules framed by the Government. The petitioner contends that the Rules so framed making no provision as regards reservation for the reserved categories are drafted in a dishonest way and simultaneously are arbitrary depiciting capricious attitude of the State. He contended that the Rules cannot be said to have been framed in consonance with the underlying spirit of the Constitution of India and, to be precise, in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14, 15(4), 16(4), 46 and 340. According to the petitioner, these various Articles referred to above, they formed within themselves a separate Code for reservation in favour of Backward Classes and, according to him, the rules are not framed keeping in view the above-said provisions, whereby the principles of equality and the policy of reservation have been totally sabotaged. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for striking down Rule 11 of the Rules. The petitioner states that the Rules framed by the respondent-State have violated the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. To find out as to whether the petitioner can be said to be entitled for the reliefs he has asked for, it will be necessary for us to go to the relevant rule directly. The Rules of 1984 are framed strictly in accordance with the powers conferred on the respondent-State by the proviso to Article 309 read with Article 165 of the Constitution of India. In these Rules, sub-rule (a) of Rule 2 defines "Advocate General" which means any person appointed as an Advocate General by the Governor of Maharashtra for the State under Article 165 of the Constitution of India. Sub-Rule (j) of Rule 2 defines the Government Pleader, as under:
"(j) "Government Pleader" means an Advocate appointed to that post under these rules by Government in the Law and Judiciary Department-
(i) in relation to the High Court of Bombay, to conduct civil cases, appeals, applications, references, petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and other proceedings filed on the Original Side and Appellate Side of the High Court at Bombay, for and on behalf of the State or its Officers and includes an Additional Government Pleader and Assistant Government Pleader and Honorary Assistant to a Government Pleader:
(ii) In relation to the High Court at Nagpur and Aurangabad, to conduct civil cases, appeals, applications, references and petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and for and on behalf of the State or its Officers and includes an Additional Government Pleader and Assistant Government Pleader and Honorary Assistant to a Government Pleader;
(iii) in relation to the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, to conduct civil cases and other proceedings for and on behalf of the State or its Officers and includes Additional Government Pleader and Assistant Government Pleader;
(iv) in relation to the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, to conduct civil cases, appeals and other proceedings for and on behalf of the State or its officers;
(v) in relation to any Court at the district headquarters in the mofussil, to be called a District Government Pleader, to conduct civil suits, appeals, applications and other proceedings, for and on behalf of the State or its Officers and includes an Additional or Assistant Government Pleader and Honorary Assistant to a District Government Pleader;
(vi) in relation to any Court at taluka headquarters, to be called a Subordinate Government Pleader, to conduct civil cases, applications and other proceedings for and on behalf of the State or its officers.
(vii) in relation to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, to be called a Special Government Pleader or Additional Special Government Pleader, to conduct appeals, revisions, review applications or any other application for and on behalf of the State or its Officers;"
Rule (2), (n), (o) and (p) deal with the definitions of Law Officers, Public Prosecutor, Special Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor, respectively. So far as regards appointment of the Advocate General is concerned, it is dealt with in Rule 5; whereas as regards the appointment of the Government Pleaders and the Public Prosecutors, the relevant Rule is Rule 11 in Chapter III of the Rules. It deals with the qualification and appointment of the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. Rule 11 specifically deals with the eligibility for appointment. Necessary it is to reproduce this Rule 11 as it is challenged in the present petition. The Rule is as under :--
"11. Eligibility for appointment.---(1) A person to be appointed as a Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor shall be one--
(a) who is citizen of India;
(b) who has obtained a degree in Law from any statutory University and has been enrolled as an Advocate;
(c) who is not more than fifty five years of age on the date of appointment;
(d) who has been in practice as an Advocate,--
(i) in the case of Government Pleader or Additional Government Pleader in the High Court, for nor less than ten years;
(ii) in the case of any other Government Pleader or Additional or Assistant Government Pleader, Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, for not less than seven years;
(iii) in the case of Subordinate Government Pleader at Taluka headquarters, for not less than three years; and
(iv) in the case of an Honorary Assistant to the Government Pleader in the High Court or District Government Pleader in the mofussil Court, for not less than three years.
(2) Nothwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, if in the opinion of Government the Law and Judiciary Department a person is,--
(i) a distinguished jurist, he shall be eligible for being appointed as an Assistant Government Pleader on the Original and Appellate Side of the High Court at Bombay, irrespective of the fact whether such a person is or is not practising as an Advocate, or if he is or was practising as an Advocate, whether he has or has not completed the period of practice prescribed in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of sub-rule (1) on the date of such appointment;
(ii) a retired judicial officer or officer of the rank not below that of a Joint Secretary in the Law and Judiciary Department and who, prior to his joining service as such Officer was a practising Advocate, or had practised as an Advocate for not less than seven years, he shall be eligible for being appointed as an Assistant Government Pleader on the Original and Appellate Side of the High Court at Bombay.
Explanation:--In computing the period of practice prescribed in Clause (ii) of this sub-rule there shall be included any period during which the person has held judicial office or the office not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Law and Judiciary Department, after he became an Advocate."
7. It is the case of the petitioner that in this Rule 11 there should have been a specific provision as regards the reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes person so also for Other Backward communities. It is no doubt true that there is no reference as regards any reservation for any particular candidate from any particular caste or community. However, the question that will have to be gone into, to find out whether any reservation could have been prescribed in the Rules, is the question whether the appointment of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors amounts to service or employment of such persons in a particular service cadre or a post in the service. So far as regards the educational qualifications or the experience are concerned, there does not appear to be any challenge made by the petitioner in the present petition. So we need not go into the details thereof. The only question that is required to be seen is whether the reservation should have been necessarily provided for in these various posts which are filled in by the Government from time to time. To find out whether these appointments or engagements of Advocates needed reservation or needs reservation for the candidates belonging to any particular caste or community, we will have to necessarily go into the question as to whether the Government Pleaders or the Public Prosecutors are the servants of the Government. In other words, whether it is a "service" as is understood in common parlance or it is simply an engagement or hiring of professional services of a particular person.
8. All the Government Resolutions/Circulars/Orders which the petitioner has annexed with the petition, can be dealt with by a stroke of pen, observing that all these documents strictly pertain to the point of reservation in matters of appointment and promotions of Government servants. After dissecting the facts of this case, if we come to the conclusion that the present engagements of the Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors, amount to service and the appointment of such Advocates as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors amounted to their appointment in a particular post in the service, only then the question of reservation will have to be gone into, else the question of providing for reservation therein would not arise at all.
9. The Governments Resolutions/Circulars/Orders to which a reference is made, as observed earlier, pertain to the service and Government servants and percentage of reservation to be maintained therein, may be at the initial stage of appointment or even at the promotional stages. We, therefore, now would like to find out as to whether, is it a service or something other than that. For reaching to the appropriate conclusion in the matter, it would be necessary for us to find out as to whether the Government Pleaders or the Public Prosecutors fall within the definition of Government Servant". Firstly we have to find out as to whether these persons hold the post as a Civil post as is contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and further whether there is a relationship of "Master" and "Servant" between the Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors and the Government. At the outset, we say that there does not exist any relationship of master and servant between the Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors and the Government.
10. It is no doubt true that the Government has a right to select the persons qualified for appointment as a Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor and further also has a right to decide as regards the nature of their appointment. However we cannot forget that it is like a professional engagement of those persons terminable at will by either side and so the factor of power of the Government of selection and appointment of these people could not be said to be determinative of establishing the relationship of master and servant between the two. Master and Servant indicates relationship which definitely exist when one is employed by another to do certain work and the person appointing him exercises right of control over the performance of work of the persons so employed to the extent of prescribing the manner in which the work is to be executed. The person who could be said to be an employee can be identified from the fact that he happens to be under the control or constant supervision of the person employing him and this supervision over the work of the alleged employee has to be constant and in details in every respect. If we apply this test to the relationship of the Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors and the State we feel that it would be an exaggeration to say that the State has an absolute control over the method and the manner of performance to be put in by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in the courts of law. To be precise, it would not be wrong if we observe that the factors which could be said to be essential for establishing the right to control the manner of working of the employees and the method of their working can be said to be totally missing in this relationship and hence the question of relationship of master and servant in the instant case, cannot be said to be there.
11. We also cannot overlook the aspect that in a given case if the Government is not satisfied as regards the conduct of the Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor which otherwise could be said to be a conduct not befitting to the profession of the Government Pleader, the Government, by itself, is not competent to take any action directly against the said Advocate, except by terminating his appointment. However for any other action, the Government has to move the Bar Council of the State or the Bar Council of India, as the case may be, which alone can be said to be competent to take an action against the concerned pleader. This is enough to suggest that the Government Pleader or the Public Prosecutors cannot be said to be the servant or in the service of the Government, else it would be a strange case where the matter would be incompetent to take an action against his servant. We may go a step further and observe that in a given case it may be competent for the Government to keep with it or to have confidentials of these persons but that would be strictly as regards their performance, integrity and further to find out whether the services of these persons would be beneficial for the State or not.
12. A reference we would like to make to one more important aspect, that the Rules also provide for the powers in the Government to engage Special Counsel to represent the Government in certain special cases if the Government may think it fit. The remuneration which is paid to such special Counsel is either prescribed under the Rules; case-wise or is to be settled between the two by appropriate negotiations. In special cases, when special Counsel are appointed, it is open for the Government-respondent to give appropriate special remuneration taking into consideration the importance of the matter and the standing and the experience of the person whose services are being hired as a Special Counsel. This is enough to suggest that it would be beyond imagination to say that these people happened to be in the service of the Government or they hold the post in some service of the Government.
13. The term "Civil Post", according to Article 311 of the Constitution, would mean an appointment or office on the Civil side of administration as distinguished from a post under the Defence forces. However under the purview of Article 311(1) which is in the nature of exception to provision under Article 310(1) are (a) members of defence services and (b) persons holding any post. The post, in this context, would denote an office or post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached. It would be necessary here, at this stage itself, to observe that in the cases of the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors, it cannot be said that the duties cast on them can be said to be in connection with the affairs of the State. As against that, it can be said that whatsoever the State would do, it is the duty of the Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors to defend the Government on that count and to assert before the Competent Judicial authorities justifying the action of the Government. In view of this the post held by these people cannot be equated with the civil posts.
14. Another aspect which will have to be noted to find out as to whether the Government Pleader or the Public Prosecutors happen to be the servants of the Government or can be termed as "Government servant", it would be worth to note that these people are neither paid any fixed salary nor are there any promotional channels. There is no pay scale with appropriate increments at appropriate intervals for these people. The question of grant of any allowances which otherwise a Government servant is entitled to, are also not given to these people and hence it can very safely be said that it is nothing but a contractual engagement as in the case of a private client and his Advocate. Here, the Government Pleader or the Public Prosecutor represents his client i.e. the Government, and above all, the services of these people can be terminated or brought to an end at will by either of them. The appointment is purely a contractual one and hence even though these people hold the office under the State in spite of that their relationship is not that of a master and servant. In our view, therefore, the Government Pleaders or the Public Prosecutors do not hold Civil post and they are not the Government servants. In our view, therefore, Article 16 has no application whatsoever in the cases of Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors. We can for this purpose safely rely on a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Trilokinath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, .
15. Though the fees of these Pleader is paid from the public exchequer, however that by itself is not a criteria for deciding the question whether he is a Government servant or not. Hence the argument advanced by Shri Salve, Advocate, in this respect, has to be dismissed as a freak argument.
16. The learned Advocate General who appeared in this matter on behalf of the respondent-State has, no doubt, brought to our notice a very celebrated case of the Apex Court of the country in the matter of State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others. In fact, this judgment of the Supreme Court virtually puts an end to all arguments on the point as to whether the Government Pleaders happened to be the Government servants. Referring to the decision in the matter of Ku. Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after dealing with the procedure as regards appointment of these people under the U.P. Act, observed that the appointment of any legal practitioner as District Government Counsel is only professional engagement terminable at will on either side and is no appointment to a post under the Government. In the case of State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra (cited supra), the matter related to the non-renewal of the term of the Government Pleaders involved therein which happened to be a matter of challenge by way of writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. That writ petition was allowed by the High Court and the order of non-renewal of the term of appointment of those Government Pleaders was quashed and set aside. The matter was taken by way of appeal before the Supreme Court at the instance of the Government of U.P. and while dealing with that matter their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the provisions of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual held that District Government Counsel held professional engagement and not appointment in the Government service. The nature of appointment is not that of a Government servant and hence the question of application of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in such appointments, did not arise.
17. Another aspect which we would like to make a passing reference to is that this Court is aware of the position that the Civil post held by a person is, no doubt, an employment in the Government. But that does not mean that every employment in the Government is a Civil post. If it would have been so, then it would cause great anomaly and even a casual labour working in the Government Department would claim to be holding a civil post. While dealing with the aspect as to what is the "civil post" with reference to the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations (1/1986) the Supreme Court has observed that there is no formal definition of post and civil post. Since it is used in the Services Chapter of Part XV of Constitution, it is indicated by its context and setting a several post is defined in Article 310 from a post connected with defence it is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration. An employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State a member of Civil Service of the Union of all India service or a Civil Service of a State has been so separately described and a civil post means a post not connected with the defence outside the regular services. A post in service or employment and a person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State, as can be conveniently gathered from the Margin Notes to Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution.
18. Article 310 indicates that a post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached; an office or a position to which a person is appointment and which may exist apart from the holder of the post and the person manning the same would hold the same during the pleasure of the President or as the case may be of the Governor of the State. In short, a person who holds a Civil post under the State, holds the office only during the pleasure of the Governor of the State except as expressly provided by the Constitution. If the facts of the present case are judged in the background of what has been observed above, we have no doubt in our mind that the Government Pleaders or the Public Prosecutors do not hold a post in the Government so as to describe them as the Government servants and hence the Government Resolutions/Circulars/Orders which are relied upon by the petitioner for the purposes of seeking reservation in such appointments, in our opinion, are totally inapplicable in the present case. We also derive support to our conclusions from the decision in the matter of State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association.
19. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court while dealing with the case of the Advocate General of State of Kerala in O.P. No : 15829/2000 observed that the Advocate General is not a Government servant even though he receives his remuneration and his appointment as the Advocate General under Article 165(3) of the Constitution of India and so there could be no doubt that subject to other terms and conditions of his appointment as an Advocate General he would be entitled to exercise his right as an Advocate to appear for private parties as well. It would be appropriate if we try to find out the position as regards the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. Applying the same test in the present case also, the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors can appear in their private cases where the State is not a party. Even in many cases, it is noticed that even after appointment as a Government Pleader; by obtaining a special permission from the concerned Law & Judiciary Department of the Government, a Government Pleader may in a given case and in particular circumstances appear against the Government also. This is enough to suggest that appointment of Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors is not an appointment in any service nor do they hold any Civil post. The relationship between a Government Pleader and that of the Government is not of Master and servant, is also a view taken by Madras High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Govind Swaminathan, reported in 1998(233) I.T.R. 264.
20. The question that now we are required to deal with is as to whether will it be appropriate in the given set of circumstances to apply the provisions of reservation in the appointment of the Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors. The Government Resolution dated 3rd May, 1974 which is filed by the petitioner is strictly pertaining to the reservation in the matter of promotion which also makes a reference to the promotions made on the basis of the seniority subject to fitness in the appointment to Class I, II, III and Class IV posts. The question of such a classification in the appointment of the Government Pleaders or Public Persecutors does not arise. Another Government Resolution dated 17th September 1980 relied upon by the petitioner, also relates to the roster system to be observed in the matter of reservation. The document (Exh. "D": page 23 of the petition) filed by the petitioner also clearly indicates that the said Circular relates strictly to the reservation and concession for backward classes in the Recruitment to the Government services which also is of no help to the present petitioner. We have no hesitation in observing that the inadequacies in the arguments of Shri Salve is quite evident when he relied solely on the documents annexed with the petition. He has utterly failed to bring any material to the notice of this Court as regards compulsion to be made in the matter of reservation while making the appointments in dispute.
21. The argument of the learned Advocate General that since the posts held by the Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors do not fall in the category of the Master and the servant or employer and its employee, the question of application of reservation policy or the question of providing reservation in such matters, does not arise, has no doubt to be accepted. The learned Advocate General, further, argued that Rule 11 of the Rules is absolutely clear and unambiguous. The said Rule simply provides for the eligibility for appointment as a Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor. However, according to him, the question of any discrimination in the appointment does not arise. The contention of the petitioner that he was discriminated while making the appointments of Government Pleaders for the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad has no substance whatsoever. In fact, the very argument of the petitioner can certainly be labelled as totally misconceived.
22. We just can't resist ourselves from observing that the provisions regarding reservation are only the enabling provisions and they also confer discretionary powers on the State to make reservation having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. It would be harsh if the Government is compelled to keep reservation in spite of there being no constitutional right in any particular backward community or there is no corresponding duty cast upon the State to make reservation in posts or services under the State which definitely may lead to the matter of litigation for the Government.
23. The allegation of the petitioner as regards the discrimination exercised against him, we have to observe that the argument is totally baseless. The question of discrimination would be there if it is possible for the petitioner and only if he establishes denial of equal treatment or opportunity amongst the persons situated in the similar circumstances. Merely because no provision for reservation is made in the appointment of the Law Officers of the State would not mean that equal treatment is denied to the persons similarly situated. In view of this it is clear that the reservation policy to be adopted in the matter of Government service, if is not equally made applicable in the matter of appointment of Law Officers, would not amount to any discrimination. Hence the argument of Shri Salve, Advocate, based on the point of discrimination also deserves no consideration.
24. In the circumstances, the petitioner neither can be said to be entitled for the relief of reservation in the appointment of the Law Officers nor do we find that Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service & Remuneration) Rules, 1984 to be unconstitutional in any manner and hence the question of striking down the same, does not arise. We also do not find it a fit case to direct the respondent-Government to amend Rule 11 as prayed for by the petitioner. To provide for reservation of seats for various Backward Classes, in the appointment of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors, is the matter of Government's policy and the courts cannot create or provide for such reservation through its judgments. The Apex Court of the country also has time and again said that neither the Apex Court nor the High Courts should interfere or adjudicate upon the policy matters of the Government, i.e. a total discretion of the Government and it is essential for the State to chalk out the policies on the basis of an overall assessment and the summary of the requirements of the Society for whose benefits the same is to be adopted.
25. The Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, , was required to deal with the matter as regards the priority to be given to the import of newsprint to satisfy the demand of all the newspaper Proprietors. While dealing with this matter, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the matter related to the policy of the Government as regards import of the newsprint and the Court observed, "this Court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Governmental policy". We are at great advantage with this observation of their Lordships in the case cited above. The sum and substance as we draw in This matter is that the courts, in ordinary course, should not transgress its jurisdiction and enter into the jurisdiction of the Government as regards the policy matters unless, of course, it is shown that the Government has either in a most arbitrary manner drawn the same or is avoiding to exercise the rights vested in it judiciously or powers so vested in the Government are not exercised by it in accordance with the mandate of the legislature. The principle is that the judiciary shall also not put the Government in such matters to any disadvantageous, inconvenient or awkward situation. For this view of ours, we can safely rely on the observations in the judgment in the matter of State of Bombay v. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas.
26. In the circumstances, we find no substance whatsoever in the present petition. Writ Petition stands rejected, with costs. Rule discharged.