Law Officers appointed through regular selection process are entitled to regularization and promotion despite pendency of litigation regarding their right to practice.

The three Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Law Officers (Grade-II) by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) following a formal recruitment process in late 2016

Their appointment letters contained a clause stating the appointments were "provisional/temporary" and subject to the outcome of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

This SLP originated from a Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld Bar Council rules prohibiting Law Officers in full-time employment from appearing in court

Having served for seven years and completed their three-year probation, the Petitioners sought to be treated as regular employees and considered for promotion to Assistant Law Officer

The BMC resisted, arguing that the Petitioners had accepted the "temporary" condition and gave undertakings to abide by the Supreme Court’s eventual decision

1. Whether the appointment of the Petitioners can be treated as provisional/temporary solely due to the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer despite the restrictive clauses in their appointment orders

The Court applied standard principles of service jurisprudence regarding the regularization of "irregular" versus "illegal" appointments

It relied on the distinction that appointments made against sanctioned vacancies via a transparent public recruitment process—even if labeled "temporary"—are not illegal and are susceptible to regularization

The Court also considered the Mumbai Corporation Service Rules, 1989 regarding probation

Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules regarding the restrictions on advocates in full-time employment

The Court reasoned that the Petitioners’ recruitment was neither illegal nor clandestine; it followed a public advertisement (03.06.2016), competitive examination, and merit-based selection against vacant, sanctioned posts

Although the BMC labeled the appointments "temporary" to protect itself against the SLP outcome regarding court appearances, the Court noted that Assistant Law Officers perform numerous administrative and legal duties (e.g., drafting agreements, titles, and legal opinions) beyond court representation

Consequently, even if the Supreme Court eventually prohibits them from appearing in court, their appointments would not become illegal as they can perform other legal functions

The Court found that after seven years of unblemished service and successful completion of probation, the BMC’s refusal to treat them as regular employees was unjustified and subject to judicial review

The Court held that the pendency of the SLP cannot perpetually deprive employees of regular status and promotion when they were recruited through a valid process. The BMC was directed to consider the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer as and when vacancies arise