http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2626-2635 of 1999

PETITIONER:

State of U.P. and Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Netra Pal Singh and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2004

BENCH:

CJI, S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPADIA.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

W I T H

C.A. No... ... ...of 2004

(@ S.L.P. (C) No. 3129 of 2000)

C.A. No... ... ... of 2004

(@ S.L.P.(C) No. 3130 of 2000) and

C.A. Nos... ... ... of 2004

(@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14753-14754 of 2002)

S.B. SINHA, J :

Leave granted in S.L.Ps.

The State of U.P. is in appeal before us being

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of

a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High

Court dated 8.2.1999 whereby and whereunder the order of the

State Government refusing to renew the term of the District

Government Counsel has been set aside.

The respondents in these ten appeals as also 24 other

persons similarly situated filed writ petitions before the

Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court questioning the

validity of the orders passed by the appellant herein

refusing to renew their term as District Government

Counsel(Criminal).

The writ petitioners who were appointed as District

Government Counsel on different dates inter alia contended

in their respective writ petitions that the State of U.P.

acted arbitrarily in not renewing their term as their

performance had been found to be satisfactory both by the

District Officer as well as the District Judge concerned in

relation whereto they had also made recommendations in terms

of the provisions of the Legal Rememberancer Manual and in

that view of the matter the impugned orders refusing to

renew their term being contrary to the provisions thereof

were not sustainable.

By reason of the impugned judgment dated 8.2.1999, a

Division Bench of the High Court although accepted the plea

of the Appellant to the effect that the appointment of the

District Government Counsel and Additional District

Government Counsel in the District Court would not amount to

appointment in a civil post by the State Government and is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

merely a professional engagement but proceeded to consider

the individual cases on merits. While dismissing 24 writ

petitions, the High Court allowed 10 writ petitions upon

entering into the merit of the matter. The High Court held

that the performance of the respondents having been found to

be satisfactory by the District Officer as well as the

District Judge and, furthermore, keeping in view of the fact

that their names were recommended, the State Government

could not have declined to renew their term. The High Court

observed that it would be fallacious to equate the

professional engagement by private persons or a party with

the appointment of DGC by the State as it is not so free as

an individual or a private person in that behalf having

regard to the fact that it is answerable and accountable to

the public.

The High Court further opined that the impugned action

on the part of the State being arbitrary and not bona fide

the same cannot be sustained. The High Court was further of

the view that although primarily it is for the State to see

the overall performance of the District Government Counsel

and make its own assessment on the question as to whether

the term of an incumbent is to be renewed or not but it is

also essential that the parameters which are set by the

State to judge the suitability of the persons for the

purposes of his retention should be reasonable and not

arbitrary.

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant would inter alia submit that having

regard to the decision of this Court in Harpal Singh Chauhan

and Others etc. vs. State of U.P. [(1993) 3 SCC 552] and

State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Others[(1995) 6

SCC 527], the High Court committed an error insofar as it

sought to substitute its own views over that of the State.

The learned counsel would contend that as the District

Government Counsel do not hold a civil post, they cannot be

said to have been any legal right in the matter of renewal

of their term.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would support

the judgment of the High Court contending that the action on

the part of the appellant was arbitrary and, thus, violative

of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

This Court while granting leave stayed the operation of

the judgment by an order dated 26.04.1999. The said interim

order of stay passed by this Court was confirmed by an order

dated 31.01.2000. The respondents, therefore, have not been

holding the office of the District Government Counsel for a

long time. We, therefore, at this stage would not be

justified in going into the merit of the matter as for all

intent and purport, the writ petitions filed by the

respondents herein have become infructuous and, thus, are

liable to be dismissed as such. They, however, may, as and

when vacancies arise, file applications in terms of the

Legal Rememberancer Manual for their appointment as Public

Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties,

however, have made submissions as regard the scope of

judicial review in such matter. Scope of judicial review in

such matters had been considered by a 3-Judge Bench of this

Court in State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Johri Mal (Civil Appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

Nos. 963-64 of 2000) disposed of today.

Keeping in view of the fact that the legal principles

as regard the power of judicial review of the High Court

have been laid down by this Court in the case of Johri Mal

(supra), we are of the opinion that nothing further is

required to be said in these appeals. These appeals are,

therefore, disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be

no order as to costs.