Order

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

“I. the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 (Annex.4) passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. 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.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.02.2019, the petitioner, a practicing advocate at Dungarpur, was recommended for inclusion in the panel for appointment as Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor/Special Public Prosecutor under the Law & Legal Affairs Department Manual Rules, 1999. Pursuant to the recommendation forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, the petitioner was appointed on the vacant post of Special Public Prosecutor, POCSO Act, 2012 and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 vide order dated 09.07.2019, and he assumed charge on 11.07.2019. However, despite discharging his duties efficiently, the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice as required under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1999, abruptly cancelled his appointment vide order dated 30.07.2019 and appointed another person in his place, giving rise to the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to comply with Rule 19 of the Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1999”), which mandates that the Government must either provide one month’s notice or one month’s remuneration in lieu thereof before dispensing with the services of the Public Prosecutor. He further submits that the respondents have utterly failed to adhere to the said provision, inasmuch as the petitioner has been neither given one month’s notice nor one month’s remuneration.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent–State submits that the term of the petitioner was for a period of one year i.e., from - 09.07.2019 to 09.07.2020, and that the said term has already expired. It is further submitted that the right to appointment or continue with the appointment on the post in question is the discretion of the State Government and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. He also submits that no interim order was ever granted in favour of the petitioner; therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.

5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that term of the petitioner was for a period of one year i.e., from 09.07.2019 to 09.07.2020, and that the said term has already expired by efflux of time. Moreover, the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the right to appointment or continue with the appointment on the post in question is the discretion of the State Government and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right thus, nothing further remains for adjudication. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

6. Stay petition as well as all pending application also stand dismissed.