1992 Supreme(MP) 592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
D.M. Dharmadhikari and M.V. Tamaskar, JJ.
Padamdhar Pandey
Vs.
State of M.P & Ors.
M.P. No. 2411 of 1990 (J)
Decided On: 16.09.1992

The appointment of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors involves a public element and cannot be equated with the engagement of a lawyer between private litigants. The public interest requires continuity in the office of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors. The State Government has the power to terminate the appointment of any Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor at any time without assigning any reason, as long as it is not done arbitrarily or for political reasons.

Headnote:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - APPOINTMENT - TERMINATION - PUBLIC ELEMENT - CONTINUITY - CONFIDENTIALITY - SCRUTINY - ARBITRARINESS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - LAW DEPARTMENT MANUAL - RULES 15 TO 19 - U.P. LEGAL REMEMBRANCER MANUAL - PARA 7.06 - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were Government Pleaders/Additional Government Pleaders, Additional Public Prosecutors, and Assistant Public Prosecutors, whose appointments were terminated by the State Government. They challenged the termination of their appointments, contending that the appointments involved a public element and could not be equated with the engagement of a lawyer between private litigants. They also argued that the public interest required continuity in the office, as the rules provided for appointment after due scrutiny by the District Judge and District Magistrate and the Law Department, with a promise or expectation of renewal, except in cases of misconduct, corruption, or inefficiency. The State Government, on the other hand, submitted that the tenure of practically each of the GP, AGP/PP & APP had expired and that on assumption of charge by the new government in March 1990, it by a general order Dt. 23.3.90 (Annexure P. 14) referred to above extended the term and issued directions for scrutiny as per L.D. Munual and submission of panel through District Magistrate on recommendations of Disirict Judge, as such, the U.P. Case (Ku. Shrilekha) is distinguishable, he says that the scheme of the U.P. Manual is different than the M.P. L.D. Manual, he submitted that there was no general orders issued to discontinue the services but there was honest exercise made to get the panels of name and appointments were made on merit and not on any politcal considerations, the question of public interest in as much the administration of criminal justice suffering docs not arise. It was also submitted that while it is true that there should be continuity in the office. It was equally inmortant the policies of the new government should also to be executed as such element of confidentiality was also involved. In any case there has been proper scrutiny & polittical bias has not swayed ever the public good as regards administration of Criminal justice in the State.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appointment of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors has a public element and cannot be equated with the engagement of a lawyer between private litigants. The Court further held that the public interest requires continuity in the office, as the rules provide for appointment after due scrutiny by the District Judge and District Magistrate and the Law Department, with a promise or expectation of renewal, except in cases of misconduct, corruption, or inefficiency. However, the Court also held that the State Government has the power to terminate the appointment of any Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor at any time without assigning any reason, as long as it is not done arbitrarily or for political reasons. The Court further held that the termination of the petitioners' appointments was not arbitrary or for political reasons, as the State Government had conducted a proper scrutiny of their work and conduct before terminating their appointments.

Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors involves a public element and cannot be equated with the engagement of a lawyer between private litigants? 2. Whether the public interest requires continuity in the office of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors? 3. Whether the State Government has the power to terminate the appointment of any Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor at any time without assigning any reason? 4. Whether the termination of the petitioners' appointments was arbitrary or for political reasons?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appointment of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors involves a public element and cannot be equated with the engagement of a lawyer between private litigants, as they are entrusted with the responsibility of acting in the interest of administration of justice. (Para 10) 2. The public interest requires continuity in the office of Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors, as the rules provide for appointment after due scrutiny by the District Judge and District Magistrate and the Law Department, with a promise or expectation of renewal, except in cases of misconduct, corruption, or inefficiency. (Para 10) 3. The State Government has the power to terminate the appointment of any Government Pleader/Public Prosecutor at any time without assigning any reason, as long as it is not done arbitrarily or for political reasons. (Para 10) 4. The termination of the petitioners' appointments was not arbitrary or for political reasons, as the State Government had conducted a proper scrutiny of their work and conduct before terminating their appointments. (Para 16)

Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.