Back
2011 (3) Supreme 710
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and H.L.Gokhale, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Rakesh Kumar Keshari & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3935 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11888 OF 2006)
Decided on : 4-5-2011
(2004) 4 SCC 714 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Judicial Review – Appointment of a Public Prosecutor or a District Counsel would be professional in nature – Holder of the office of the Public Prosecutor does not hold a civil post and therefore no status is conferred on the incumbent and he does not have a legally enforceable right to renewal – Action of the State in not renewing the tenure can be interfered only if arbitrary. (Para 14)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – L.R. Manual contains executive instructions and is not law within the meaning of Article 13 – Scope of judicial review is very limited. (Para 14)
(1998) 7 SCC 739 – Distinguished
(d) Constitution of India – Article 14 – In the matter of engagement of A.D.G.C. concept of public office does not come into play – The choice is that of the Government and being a position of great trust and confidence none can claim a right to be appointed – Article 14 may be attracted to a limited extent if the State fails to discharge its public duty or acts in defiance, deviation and departure of the principles of law. (Para 15)
Civil Appeal No. 3785 of 2003 – Relied upon
(e) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Respondents having no legally enforceable right of appointment or renewal of tenure, writ petition was not maintainable. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
This appeal relates to appointment of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in Ghazipur District of the State of U.P.
Finding of the Court:
The writ was not maintainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
J.M. Panchal, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against Judgment dated 11.07.2005 rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28444 of 2005 by which order dated 07.09.2004 of the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh directing the District Magistrate to submit another panel/list for appointment to the two posts of the Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in Ghazipur District of the State of U.P. is set aside and District Magistrate, Ghazipur is directed to consult the District Judge and thereafter to furnish better particulars in respect of 10 persons whose names had been included in the two panels dated 01-05-2004 with the consultation of the District Judge, whereas the State Government is directed not to consider revised panel unless the panel submitted by the District Magistrate in consultation with the District Judge is rejected on some disclosed grounds.
3. Backgrounds facts sans unnecessary details are as under:-
The respondents nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on contract basis, to the vacant posts of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) (“A.D.G.C.” for short), in Ghazipur District of State of U.P. on 22.10.2001. As the terms of the appointment of the respondents were up to 10.10.2002, the District Judge, Ghazipur after being satisfied with the work and conduct of the respondents had recommended to the District Magistrate, Ghazipur to get extended their terms by communication dated 31.07.2002. The District Magistrate, Ghazipur had recommended to the State Government to extend the terms of the respondents vide communication dated 31.07.2002. The Post of Assistant A.D.G.C. (Criminal) on which the respondents were working were advertised by the then District Magistrate, Ghazipur. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondents also applied for the post in question. Their applications were forwarded by the District Judge, Ghazipur to the then District Magistrate along with his Report. However, no action whatsoever was taken by the appellants either for renewing the terms of the respondents on the recommendation dated 31-07-2002 of the District Magistrate or for appointing them on the post of Assistant A.D.G.C. (Criminal) pursuant to the above mentioned advertisement. Again by advertisement dated 16.01.2004 the District Magistrate, Ghazipur had advertised the post of A.D.G.C. (Criminal) under the Judgeship of Ghazipur. The respondents had again applied for the post of A.D.G.C. (Criminal) along with other candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 16-01-2004, applications from 29 candidates were received. From the record it is evident that two letters dated 07-02-2004 and 01-03-2004 were addressed by the District Magistrate to the District Judge, Ghazipur for regular appointment of two A.D.G.C. (Criminal). In response to those two letters, the District Judge, Ghazipur by communication dated 07-04-2004 informed the District Magistrate that after obtaining opinion of the other Judicial Officers two panels of candidates, each containing 5 names were prepared. By a letter dated 19-04-2004, the District Magistrate had suggested to the District Judge to change/alter the two panels but District Judge had vide communication dated 28-04-2004, informed the District Magistrate that, it would not be in the fitness of things to change or alter the two panels which were prepared after taking much pains. However, by the said communication, the District Judge also mentioned that the work, conduct and legal knowledge of the remaining candidates were satisfactory. Thereupon, the District Magistrate, Ghazipur addressed a communication dated 01-05-2004 to the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow informing him that the two posts of A.D.G.C.(Criminal) were advertised and 29 applications were received regarding which approval of the District Judge was obtained on 28-04-2004. It was furt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
