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.