JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

I. The order dated 20.12.2021 (Ann.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. Any order (if passed) engaging another advocate in place of the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

III. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

IV. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the Petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Udaipur (Rajasthan). The respondent-Department vide order dated 09.07.2019 has engaged the petitioner as an Additional Public Prosecutor and Government Counsel at Udaipur. The respondent vide letters dated 26.08.2021 and 09.09.2021 issued to the petitioner called for a detailed clarification (alongwith certain documents) from him in relation to the petitioner’s annual performance, as Additional Public Prosecutor and Government Counsel; the same was replied by the petitioner. Yet vide another letter dated 20.10.2021, the petitioner was called upon to furnish the clarification.

2.1 The petitioner submitted a detailed clarification with regard to his performance on 08.11.2021, whereafter, the respondent vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2021, while cancelling the petitioners engagement, relieved him from the duty. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur; but since, as per the petitioner, his grievance was still subsisting, therefore, the present petition has been preferred, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 19 (2) of the Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999, “the Government may at any time and without assigning any reason dispense with services of a Public Prosecutor after giving him one month’s notice or one month’s remuneration in lieu thereof.”. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned action of the respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that not a single complaint was made against the petitioner during his tenure as Additional Public Prosecutor, and on that count also, the impugned order passed by the respondent is not justified in law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel & Additional General Advocate assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondent issued letters dated 26.08.2021, 09.09.2021 and 20.10.2021 to the petitioner seeking the necessary clarification, and after duly consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent-Department, which is justified in law.

4.1. It was further submitted that as per the orders dated 22.03.2016 and 17.05.2016 passed by the respondent, whereby upon due evaluation of the performance of all the Public Prosecutors in the State of Rajasthan, it was found that the performance and services of the petitioner did not merit the yardstick of requirement of 25% of cases decided in favour of the State, and therefore the impugned order was rightly passed by the respondent.

4.2. It was also submitted that as per the Rule 19 (2) of the Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999, where the term of appointment has expired or where the term is extended till further orders, in such cases, no notice shall be necessary, and therefore, the petitioner term since expired on 30.07.2021, therefore, the terms was further extende