Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, SURENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Santosh Kumar Dohrey – Appellant
Versus
Pramukh Sachiv Nyay Evam Vidhi Paramarshi U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C No.42430 of 2014
Decided on : 14-09-2023
Renewal - Professional Engagement - U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 - Section 24 of Cr.P.C. - Legal Remembrancer Manual - The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994, Section 24 of Cr.P.C., and the Legal Remembrancer Manual. It emphasized that the appointment to the posts of District Government Counsel (Criminal) and Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and not a civil post. The appointee does not have any right for renewal or reappointment, and such professional engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such. The action of the State in not renewing the tenure can be subjected to judicial scrutiny inter-alia on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of the term of the post held by him.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal), filed a writ petition against the order relieving him from his post after his engagement expired. The petitioner sought renewal, citing positive recommendations and pending government decision. The State-respondents opposed, arguing that the engagement was for a limited period and the petitioner had no legal right for renewal.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the appointment to the posts of District Government Counsel (Criminal) and Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and not a civil post. The appointee does not have any right for renewal or reappointment, and such professional engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such. The action of the State in not renewing the tenure can be subjected to judicial scrutiny inter-alia on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of the term of the post held by him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a legal right for renewal on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) and whether the State's action in not renewing the tenure was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the appointment to the posts of District Government Counsel (Criminal) and Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) by the State Government is a professional engagement of an advocate and not a civil post. The appointee does not have any right for renewal or reappointment, and such professional engagement can be terminated on either side without notice and without assigning any reason. The incumbent has no legal enforceable right as such. The action of the State in not renewing the tenure can be subjected to judicial scrutiny inter-alia on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The incumbent cannot claim extension or renewal of the term of the post held by him.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had no legal right for renewal on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) and that the State's action in not renewing the tenure was not arbitrary.
JUDGMENT :
Surendra Singh-I, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi.
3. By the impugned order, the respondent no. 4 ordered the petitioner that since his engagement for working as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) has expired on 29.07.2014, hence, he should hand over the charge of aforesaid post in the forenoon of 30.07.2014 to District Government Counsel (Criminal).
4. Averment has been made that the petitioner was engaged by the government on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) vide G.O. dated 09.09.2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. till the period of 02.09.2009. The petitioner performed the duty of his post efficiently and vide order dated 29.07.2011 passed by Nyay Anubhag-3 (Niyuktiyan), he was further engaged for 3 years or till the age of superannuation of sixty years, whichever is earlier. Before expiry of period of his re-appointment, the petitioner on 17.04.2014 submitted application for renewal in Proforma-9 to respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi. The District Judge, Jhansi, vide letter no. 14/SAO/2014 dated 26.05.2014 forwarded his recommendation to the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi for renewal. On the basis of recommendation of District Judge, Jhansi, the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi vide letter no. 1594/J.A.-29/2014-15 dated 09.06.2014 forwarded his recommendation for renewal to Special Secretary (Legal Remembrancer), Government of U.P. The government has not passed any order on the proposal for renewal of his term because vide order dated 10.07.2014, status quo order was passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
5. The respondent no. 5, District Government Counsel (Criminal), Jhansi vide letter dated 30.07.2014 sought guidance from the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi for the functioning of petitioner on the ground that his tenure has expired on 29.07.2014 and no renewal was done by the government. An influential leader of the ruling party sent letter dated 30.07.2014 to the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi, asking him to discharge the petitioner from performing his duties as his tenure has expired on 29.07.2014. The respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi, has passed the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 under the pressure of aforesaid leader of the ruling party. The petitioner submitted his representation to the respondent no. 4 for withdrawing his impugned order dated 30.07.2014 by which he was relieved from performing his duties on the post of A.D.G.C. (Crl.) but the impugned order was not withdrawn. The respondent no. 4 issued on 12.06.2014 advertisement for inviting application for the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal).
6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate, Jhansi, has no authority to relieve him from his post of A.D.G.C. (Crl.) since proposal for renewal for his post is pending with the government. Vide order dated 14.08.2014, the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court suspended the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 passed by respondent no. 4 and permitted the petitioner to continue on his post and be paid salary/perks. It has been next submitted that Hon’ble High Court in Misc. Bench No. 9127 of 2012, Ajay Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, had directed the State Government to maintain status quo regarding the continuance of District Government Counsel (Criminal). Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent no. 4 being against the afore-mentioned stay order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, is illegal and liable to be quashed.
7. In the counter affidavit dated 09.10.2014 filed by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, it has been
The District Government Counsel do not hold civil posts or employee status under Article 311; their engagement is contractual, terminable at will without notice, and does not attract constitutional p....
Engagement of Advocates as Law Officers is a professional arrangement, not subject to Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 14 and 16, affirming the Government's discretion to appoint and terminate withou....
The government holds discretion to terminate appointments of Public Prosecutors without inquiry or specific reasons, provided procedural mandates of applicable instructions are adhered to, maintainin....
The court ruled that interim orders must not direct State authorities to act under repealed laws, emphasizing that a repeal invalidates previous provisions making them non-existent.
The State Government must conform to statutory procedures when making appointments to public offices to ensure the rule of law is upheld.
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
