Law Officers Have No Vested Right To Complete 3-Year Tenure, State Can Terminate Services Early: Orissa High Court

"Law Officer is a civil post, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of the State in terminating their services vide the impugned notification and appointment of a fresh set of Law Officers," High Court of Orissa, in a significant ruling, held that Law Officers appointed by the State Government do not possess a vested right to continue in office for the full duration of their three-year term.

A single-judge bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed that since the appointments are typically made "until further orders" and governed by administrative rules, the State retains the authority to terminate such engagements before the expiry of the normal tenure.

A batch of writ petitions was filed by several Law Officers in the district of Ganjam who were appointed on January 8, 2024, for a term of three years. Following a change in the State Government, their services were terminated on December 24, 2025, and a fresh set of Law Officers was appointed on the same day. The petitioners challenged these notifications, alleging that the termination was arbitrary, violated the principles of natural justice, and bypassed the protections offered under the Orissa Law Officers Rules, 1971.

The primary question before the court was whether a Law Officer has a vested right to continue in their post for the entire three-year term as stipulated in the 1971 Rules. The court was also called upon to determine if the termination of Law Officers upon a change in government, without prior notice or show-cause, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

State Retains Power To Terminate Prior To Completion Of Tenure

The Court noted that while Rule 6 of the Orissa Law Officers Rules, 1971, originally suggested a three-year term, the provision was amended via a notification dated August 5, 2025. The amended rule explicitly clarifies that the State Government may terminate any Law Officer before the expiry of the normal three-year tenure. The bench observed that the petitioners' appointments were subject to the condition of being "until further orders," which further weakened their claim to a fixed term.

Amended Rule 6 Of 1971 Rules

The Court highlighted the language of the amended Rule 6, which states that a Law Officer shall "ordinarily" hold office for three years but remains subject to the State’s power of early termination. The bench found that the use of the word "ordinarily" implies that the three-year duration is not a mandatory or absolute entitlement.

"The State Government may terminate any law officer before the expiry of normal tenure of three years."

1971 Rules Are Administrative, Not Statutory Under Article 309

Addressing the nature of the governing rules, the Court relied on the precedent set in Sudhansu Sekhar Misra Vs. State of Orissa, noting that the 1971 Rules were not framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Consequently, these rules are procedural and administrative guidelines rather than statutory mandates. The relationship between the State and the Law Officer is essentially that of a client and an advocate, rooted in professional engagement.

Distinction Between Shrilekha Vidyarthi And Johri Mal Decisions

The petitioners heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P., which discouraged mass termination of Law Officers solely due to a change in government. However, the High Court pointed out that a subsequent three-judge bench of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Johri Mal and State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Keshari had refined this position. These later rulings established that the choice of counsel is a matter of trust and confidence for the State.

Judicial Review Limited In Matters Of Professional Engagement

The Court observed that judicial review in the appointment or termination of District Government Counsel is limited to examining the "decision-making process" rather than the merits of the choice itself. The bench emphasized that the State must be free to select its own counsel, and the court cannot compel the government to utilize the services of a specific advocate against its preference.

"The Court normally would not delve into the records with a view to ascertain as to what impelled the State not to renew the tenure of the Public Prosecutor or a District Counsel."

No Vested Right Or Requirement For Show-Cause Notice

The Court concluded that since the petitioners were not holding a statutory public office but were engaged on a professional basis, no formal show-cause notice or prior warning was required before their termination. The bench found no illegality or irregularity in the State’s action to terminate the old batch and appoint a fresh set of Law Officers simultaneously.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions at the admission stage, finding the pleadings to be without merit. It held that the State’s action did not violate Article 14 and was within the scope of its executive powers and the amended 1971 Rules.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2026