Karnataka High Court faults government’s action of withdrawing appointment of an advocate within 24 hours

The High Court of Karnataka has restored appointment of an advocate to the post of “additional district government pleader” by setting aside the State government’s order of withdrawing his appointment within 24 hours solely for the reason that the Law Minister had ordered for appointing another advocate based on the recommendation of an MLA.

The appointment made after due process, was extinguished the very next day, not for administrative exigency, not for legal infirmity, but solely on account of a sudden change of mind, resting on a tippani [note] from the Minister.

“If such caprice is permitted judicial shelter, then the doctrine of pleasure would transmute into an instrument of unbridled executive whim, reducing the Constitutional safeguards to a rhetoric. This court cannot be a mute spectator to such executive freewheeling. Judicial intervention becomes not merely appropriate, but imperative in such cases,” the court observed.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Sunil from Athani in Belagavi district, who was removed from the post of “additional district government pleader”, XI Additional District and Session Court, Belagavi, under the provisions of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977.

Petitioner was appointed on October 28, 2025, and removed from the post on October 29 based on a note put up by the Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights, who issued instruction to appoint one D.K. Thakkannavar to the post based on the recommendation made by the MLA of Athani constituency.

Declining to accept government’s contention that petitioner’s post is a nominated post and is at the pleasure of the government, the court said it is not a nomination but appointment under the Rules, 1977, and his removal was arbitrary as there was illegality in his appointment.

“When State action shifts this swiftly and without explanation, the vital question is, is this discretion or is it arbitrariness, and an unequivocal and emphatic answer is “the action is arbitrary.”,” the court observed.

“Perhaps, this is first case in the annals of judicial review of such gross arbitrary exercise of power; in 24 hours the State changes its own orders, to its whim,” the court remarked.