The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday had set aside and quashed the State Government order rejecting to renew District Government Counsel’s post by on the ground of arbitrariness and non application of mind.
Brief facts of the case-
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal). Before the expiration of his term, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the District magistrate (DM) for renewal of his term. He forwarded the application the state government for the grant of renewal in terms of the relevant rules. The State rejected the renewal application of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the DM passed consequential order directing the petitioner to hand over the charge to Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal). Subsequently, another notification was issued by the DM inviting applications from the Advocates for their engagement as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal).
The appointment and conditions of engagement of a counsel on the post of Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) are governed by the provisions of Legal Remembrance’s Manual.
The basic ground, which was taken by the the petitioner in the writ petition is that the refusal to renewal the term of the petitioner on the post of District Government Counsel (Criminal) was passed by the respondent State without assigning any reasons as to why the recommendations made by the District Judge was not accepted.
The counter affidavit filed by the State said that the District Government Counsel (Criminal) does not enjoy any statutory right in respect to the renewal of the tenure. The State Government enjoyed the discretionary power in this regard. It is further argued on behalf of respondents that the renewal is not the indefeasible right of the Advocates as District Government Counsel (Criminal) and it is for the State Government to consider to appoint as District Government Counsel (Criminal) or not.
The case was heard by the division bench comprising of Justice Bala Krishna Narayan & Justice Prakash Padia, who observed that the impugned order does not record any such satisfaction and the entitlement of the petitioner does not appear to have been considered in the light of the provisions of Legal Remembrancer’s Manual.
The High Court while allowing the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the state government and the consequential communication dated 1.11.2017 is also set aside.
However, the bench clarified that order passed would not amount to re- engagement of the petitioner or his continuance. The matter shall be decided afresh keeping in view the observations made in the judgement as well as the provisions of Legal Remembrancer’s Manual within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
–India Legal Bureau