The Allahabad High Court has asked the Uttar Pradesh government and the Advocate General to inform the court about the steps taken to speed up recruitment in the office of the government advocate at the High Court, noting that staff shortages are affecting the ability of state law officers to properly assist the court during hearings.
The direction was issued by a bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi in an order dated February 26 while hearing a writ petition filed by Subedar Yadav. The bench asked the state government to file a detailed affidavit through the concerned secretary explaining the measures taken to address the issue. The court warned that if the affidavit is not submitted by the next date of hearing, it may take a serious view of the matter.
During the proceedings, the bench observed that the lack of adequate staff in the office of government advocates was leading to difficulties in the proper management of case files and records. The court noted that this problem was affecting the ability of state law officers to provide effective assistance during hearings.
The bench remarked, “Be it government or advocate general, if for shortage of staff or for any other inconvenience the state law officer/additional advocate general fails in making proper arrangement of files and resultantly the court is not able to hear the matters for want of proper assistance, it amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”
The court further cautioned that failure to fill vacancies or delays in recruitment could undermine the functioning of the justice delivery system. It observed that if the system becomes paralysed due to unfilled posts or administrative lapses, the administration of justice would inevitably suffer.
The issue came to light when the bench noticed during the hearing that records maintained by state counsel were not properly updated. The court also found that state lawyers appearing in matters were often not fully aware of the factual details of the cases, as files were not being sent to them in advance.
According to the court, the lack of proper record maintenance and delays in forwarding case files were among the reasons causing inconvenience during court proceedings.
Senior state law officers present in court explained that the situation was largely due to a shortage of Class III and Class IV staff in the state law office. They submitted that recruitment for such posts can begin only after the state government grants sanction or permission for the appointments.
Taking note of these submissions, the High Court directed the state government to clarify the steps being taken to address the staffing shortage and to ensure that the functioning of the state law office does not hamper the court’s work.
