1. Calling into question the judgment and order dated 31.3.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13832 of 2013, the respondents in the writ petition have filed these writ appeals.

2. The first respondent has filed a writ petition assailing the communication issued by the Reserve Bank of dated 18.12.2006, thereby withdrawing the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of dated 4.1.1991 in the matter of appointment of panel advocates for the Nationalized Banks in All Level/State Level/ Regional Level/Zone Level. The first respondent further sought directions to empanel the advocates by following the established principles of law and to provide adequate representation to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities.

3. It was the case of the first respondent that he was deprived of his opportunity to be empaneled as an advocate in banks despite his applications to the banks.

4. The respondents in the writ petition were nationalized banks, so also other public sector banks.

5. The learned Single Judge directed respondents 7 to 34 in the writ petition [the present appellants herein] to review the existing procedure of their respective banks for empanelment of lawyers and suitably alter/amend/frame new rules/procedures in consonance and in compliance with the constitutional mandate and based on the established principles to be adopted for appointment/empanelment.

6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment observed that the prevailing procedure adopted by the banks for empanelment of lawyers is not in consonance with the established principles to be followed for appointment/empanelment. The procedure; method of selection; and merit assessment are to be made and the guidelines or procedure should contemplate the same for empaneling the lawyers. The learned Single Judge further observed that adequate representation is to be provided for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities, without compromising on the merits.

7. The banks have challenged the said judgment in the present appeals.

8. As the present appeals are filed impugning the same judgment, all the appeals are decided by the common judgment.

9. The first respondent/original writ petitioner was issued with the notice by this court. In many of the appeals notice is served on the first respondent, but he remained absent.

10. We have heard learned Senior Advocates and advocates for the respective appellants and respondents, except the first respondent/original writ petitioner.

11. The contour of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants is that the bank has its own procedure for empanelment of lawyers. The empanelment of lawyers is not to a civil post so as to attract Article 16 of the Constitution of . Reservation is not contemplated while empaneling the lawyers. The engagement is merely contractual.

12. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has laid down the scope and ambit of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of . It is well established that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role. For a public law remedy enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of , the actions of the authority need to fall in the realm of public law. The courts will not have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in a matter governed by contract, wherein public law element would not be involved.

13. The empanelment of lawyers by the banks cannot be on the pedestal of an employment for holding a civil post. The lawyers empaneled by the bank are not governed by the service rules of the bank. The conditions of appointment of the empaneled lawyers are not governed by any statute, rules or regulations.

14. Article 16 of the Constitution of would apply in matters of public employment or appointment to any office under the State. We may extend the concept of employment or appointment under the office of the State to the instrumentalities of the State also. However, for invoking Article 16 of the Constitution of , it will have to be demonstrated that the matter is in the realm of public employment or appointment to any office under the State. As the lawyers engaged by the bank do not hold a civil post, nor the relationship of master and servant exists, Article 16(4) of the Constitution of would not be applicable. The criterion to apply the reservation policy would not be attracted.

15. Each bank has its own procedure for empanelment of the lawyers. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has referred to the circulars issued by the respective nationalized banks and public sector banks providing for the process of empanelment. The procedure prescribed in the said circulars contemplates the criteria for empanelment; process of empanelment; authority for empanelment; preparation of revised list by the zones; distribution/ allocation of works, other conditions for empanelment; review of the performance; parameters for reviewing the performance of the panel advocate; de-paneling of advocate; and review at head office level.

16. It would appear that the banks have laid down the procedure for empanelment. Certainly, the banks have to adhere to the said procedure. It would be stretching Article 16 of the Constitution of too far to apply it for the empanelment of the lawyers by the banks. By not providing for the reservation in empaneling the lawyers, no provision of the Constitution of is violated.

17. The relationship between the banks and the empaneled lawyers is purely a professional relationship and not that of a master and servant. The lawyers empaneled by the banks, during their performance of the duty, are not holding any civil post. They are not government servants and/or government employees. The empanelment of lawyers is at the pleasure of the bank. The sine qua non is that the lawyers selected by the bank should be duly qualified, competent and worthy to represent it. The determination of their engagement is also at the pleasure of the bank. So also, the lawyer engaged by the bank has a right to terminate his services with the bank. It cannot be said that their appointment is a tenure appointment.

18. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others, AIR 1996 SC 864, observed that the appointment of a legal practitioner as a District Government Counsel is only a professional engagement terminable at will and is not appointment to a post under the government.

19. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 204, observed that the government and the public bodies engage the services of lawyers purely on contractual basis either for a specified case or for a specified or an unspecified period. The nature of the contract is one of professional engagement and not of employment.

21. This Court in the case of Thol. Thirumaavalavan v. The Principal Secretary, Department of Law, and others, 2024-1-Writ LR 1: 2024 (1) LW 353, held that reservation – vertical and/or horizontal need not be provided while appointing Law Officers by the Government.

22. It also needs to be appreciated that the relationship between the advocate and his client is uberrima fides, i.e., one of active confidence and trust. The banks deal with public money.

It is the obligation and the duty of the banks to protect the public money to its optimum extent and in the best possible manner. This duty mandates the banks to engage the most proficient, competent and capable persons to represent it. Ergo, in the selection of the lawyers, the bank is duty-bound to make earnest efforts to choose the best. In empaneling the lawyers, merit ought to be the sole consideration.

23. Though the expectations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are appreciable, issuing directions to the banks to provide for representation to the advocates belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities would be beyond the realm of judicial review. In the absence of any constitutional or statutory mandate providing for reservation, it would not be possible for the courts to issue writs directing the banks to provide for reservation and/or representation to the members of SC/ST/OBC communities in empanelment of lawyers. Nonetheless, it would be appreciable if the banks follow the broad-based procedure for selecting the best and the meritorious lawyers for empanelment.

24. We hope and trust that the banks would select the most meritorious lawyers as their empaneled lawyers, so as to safeguard the public moiety, of which the banks are custodians.

Resultantly, we allow these writ appeals and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.