Allahabad HC Slams Spoils System In Counsel Appointments | Merit Not Inheritance Must Guide State Corporations | Rule Of Law Cannot Be Compromised By Nepotism
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to devise and finalize a scheme for the appointment of counsels through transparent procedures that promote merit and provide fair opportunities to young first-generation lawyers. The Court recorded the assurance of the Managing Director of the Corporation that all endeavors will be made to ensure that the best talent from the Bar is considered while making such appointments. The Court ordered that the meeting of the Board of the Corporation be held prior to the next date of listing to finalize the scheme for presentation before the Court. Time was granted to the counsel for the petitioners to file an amendment application, and the Managing Director was directed to file an affidavit on the next date of listing. The counter affidavit was also directed to be filed before the next hearing date. The matter was listed for further hearing on 22 September 2025.
The proceedings arose from a writ petition connected to prima facie disobedience of directions previously issued by the Court. Upon inquiry, the respondent Corporation concluded that the circumstances leading to the matter were the result of professional negligence or incompetence of the counsels representing the Corporation before the Labour Court. In response, the Corporation initiated appropriate action against the concerned counsels.
The judgment notes that the appointment of meritorious counsels through a fair and transparent procedure is fundamental to the good governance of a government corporation and aligns with the mandate of constitutional law. The Court stated that an entitlement culture has developed in the appointments of counsels for State corporations, where representation opportunities are largely given to individuals from influential families. While clarifying that this observation does not question the competence of any particular counsel appointed by the Corporation, the Court recorded that such appointments reflect systemic decay where offices are secured through influence.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991(1) SCC 212, wherein it was directed that the State must adopt a transparent and fair procedure when appointing State counsels. The Court recorded that this mandate equally applies to various government corporations, including the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
It was observed that the legal profession demands years of consistent effort and devotion to legal scholarship for success. The Court stated that first-generation younger lawyers frequently do not receive opportunities to represent State corporations despite their competence, integrity, and diligence. Many such lawyers, the Court noted, are excluded from consideration simply because they cannot exert influence over those in power. The Court recorded that appointment processes that prioritize familial connections over merit cannot be supported in State corporations.
The Court further observed that the prevailing appointment culture has degraded the quality of professional representation for the Corporations. It referred to previous cases where it was found that counsels appointed through such processes failed to appear in court, despite receiving notices, and often sub-delegated the entrusted case files to others.
The Court cited its earlier order in Gaurav Jain v. State of U.P. and Another (Writ C No. 10440 of 2021), which noted that appointed counsels were not appearing in court and were instead sending junior colleagues or friends. The order in that case had been placed before the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to issue instructions to all State departments to prevent the sub-delegation of files entrusted to appointed counsels.
Justice Bhanot recorded that the existing system invariably overlooks politically unaffiliated and non-influential first-generation counsels in State and State-run Corporation appointments. The failure to identify merit in such advocates can dishearten them, weaken the justice delivery system, and prevent the development of the Bar. The Court noted that this results in systemic deficiencies with adverse consequences for governance by law.
The Court observed that it is the responsibility of all State authorities to uphold the rule of law and fairness, and that the selection of counsels should be based on independent observation of court proceedings by Corporation officials present incognito in court. The Court stated that such procedures must be followed by rigorous checks into the competence and integrity of counsels and may involve formal interactions with relevant authorities. It left the detailed formulation of such selection methods to the authorities, based on institutional experience.
The Court recorded: "Appointment of meritorious counsels by a fair and transparent procedure is central to good governance of a government corporation and is consistent with the mandate of constitutional law."
It was further observed: "Hitherto, an entitlement culture has taken root in appointments of counsels for State corporations where only scions of influential families are given opportunities to represent State corporations."
Referring to the binding precedent, the Court stated: "The Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. reported at 1991(1) SCC 212 enjoined the State to adopt a transparent and fair procedure while appointing State counsels. The said mandate applies in equal measure to various government corporations including the UPSRTC."
On the exclusion of deserving candidates, the Court noted: "Very often first generation younger lawyers do not get opportunity to represent the State corporations. A good number of such first generation lawyers are very competent, possess unimpeachable integrity and are industrious by disposition."
The Court remarked on the current state of affairs: "Modes of appointment of counsels which accord weight to accidents of inheritance and neglect achievements of merit cannot be countenanced in State Corporations."
Addressing the quality of representation, it recorded: "In many cases this Court has found that the counsels for the Corporations who are appointed through the spoils system receive the notices and do not appear in Courts. They simply sub delegate the files entrusted to them."
Recalling prior judicial action, the Court stated: "Let this order be placed before the Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow who shall issue necessary instructions to all the departments of the State in regard to the appointment of counsels representing them before this Court not to sub-delegate the file entrusted to them."
On the consequences of the current system, the Court recorded: "The unjust nature of the system has serious adverse consequences on governance by law. The justice delivery system becomes weak and unable to serve justice to the common citizens due to systemic deficiencies."
The Court stated procedural fairness: "Selections of counsels can only be done by independent and dispassionate observance of court proceedings by officials of the Corporation who are regularly present incognito in Court."
The Court recorded the presence of Shri Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director, UPSRTC, and noted his assurance that "all endeavors shall be made by the Corporation to ensure that the best talent from the Bar is given a look in while making such appointments."
The Court directed that "a system which adopts transparent procedures, promotes merit and gives a fair look in to young first generation lawyers while appointing counsels to represent UPSRTC in Courts has to be devised by the Corporation." For this purpose, the Court ordered that the meeting of the Board of UPSRTC be held prior to the next date of listing, and that the scheme be finalized for presentation before the Court.
The counsel for the petitioners was granted time to file an amendment application. The Managing Director of UPSRTC was directed to file an affidavit on the next date of listing. The Court also directed that the counter affidavit be filed before the next hearing date. The matter was scheduled for listing on 22 September 2025 in the list of fresh cases.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Yogesh Kumar Vaish, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sheo Ram Singh, Advocate; Sunil Kumar Misra, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Jubeda Begum and Another v. U.P. State Road Transport and Another
Case Number: Writ - C No. 12610 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot
