SHESHRAO ALIAS SHASHIKANT DATTSHETTI TUPTEWARversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:28637-DB
                                                        1                                981.doc



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        981 WRIT PETITION NO. 6806 OF 2023

             SHESHRAO ALIAS SHASHIKANT DATTSHETTI TUPTEWAR
                                  VERSUS
           THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                  ...


              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mukhedkar Amit Arunkumar
            Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI : Mr. Bangar Ravi Raosaheb
    Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 : Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande Senior Counsel i/b.
                                     Mr. Rakh Arun V.
                                             …
                                               CORAM         : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                               ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                                 DATE        : 02.07.2026

              PER COURT :
             .      By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has made following prayers :

                  “B)By issuing a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or
                  order of a like nature, the order dtd.3-5-2023 passed by respondent
                  no.3-Dy. Managing Director (HR) and CDO of State bank of India
                  (annexed at Exhibit 'H'), may please quashed and set-aside;

                  C)By issuing a Writ of mandamus or any other order or writ of a like
                  nature, the respondent nos.2 to 10 may please be directed to strictly
                  follow guidelines framed in Circular dtd.26-3-2013 issued by
                  respondent no.2-Deputy Managing Director of SBI Bank, so far as it
                  relates to allotment of matters by State Bank of India to its panel
                  Advocates by following rotation system;

                  D) By issuing a Writ of mandamus or any other order or writ of a like
                  nature, the respondent nos.2 to 10 may please be directed to strictly
                  follow guidelines framed in Circular dtd.26-3-2013 issued by
                  respondent no.2-Deputy Managing Director of SBI Bank, so far as it
                  relates to allotment of matters by State Bank of India to petitioner, by
                  following rotation system.”
                                         2                              981.doc



2.    By relying on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
at the Nagpur Bench in the case of Rajan Shrivallabha Deshpande vs.
Bank of Baroda reported in 2022 (5) ALL M.R. 196, learned Advocate
for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petition deserves to be
allowed.


3.    Per contra, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has
placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras
High Court in the case of Chairman And Managing Director, UCO Bank
vs. K. Marimuthu and Others in W.A. No. 2199 of 2023.


4.    We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused
the memo of the Writ Petition, the annexures thereto, and the decisions
relied upon by the petitioner and the respondents.


5.    The Madras High Court, in its decision in the case of Chairman
And Managing Director, UCO Bank (supra), has made following
pertinent observations :

     “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 India. 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 India, 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
                                   3                             981.doc



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 India 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 India,
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 India 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
India 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 India 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
                                   4                              981.doc



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 COPY of
employment.

20. The Apex Court in a case of State of U.P. and another v. Johri
Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714, observed that the appointment of a Public
Prosecutor/District Government Counsel is a professional
engagement and not an appointment to a civil post.

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
                                      5                           981.doc



     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.”


6.      We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Madras High
Court. The issue raised by the petitioner therefore, cannot be
considered in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In the citation relied upon by the petitioner, by relying on the
guidelines issued in Chairman And Managing Director, UCO Bank
(supra), in the facts of that case, the Court allowed the Writ Petition
and interfered at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice. The
said decision is rendered in different facts and, hence, has no
application to the facts of the present case.


7.      For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the Writ Petition.
The same is, therefore, dismissed.




( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )                  ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. )



vsj..