2004 JTR(SC) 534
2004 20 AIC 541 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 3513 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 3369 ; 2004 2 AllCJ 1236 ; 2004 AllLJ 2151 ; 2004 5 AWC 4638 ; 2004 102 FLR 177 ; 2004 5 JT 342 ; 2004 3 LLN 59 ; 2004 4 Scale 814 ; 2004 4 SCC 748 ; 2004 SCC(L&S) 680 ; 2004 Supp1 SCR 530 ; 2004 5 SLR 364 ; 2004 3 UPLBEC 2253 ; 2004 KHC 994 ; 2004 4 Supreme 224
2004(4) Supreme 224
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Netra Pal Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2626-2635 of 1999
With
C.A.No. 2635 of 2004
(@ SLP (C) No. 3129 of 2000)
C.A.No. 2636 of 2004
(@ SLP (C) No. 3130 of 2000) and
C.A.Nos. 2637-2638 of 2004
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 14753-14754 of 2002)
Decided on 21-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Ashok K. Srivastava, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ashok Kumar Sharma, K.K. Gupta, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, R.D. Upadhyay, Kunwar C.M. Khan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statute is Service Law, which governs the tenure and renewal of District Government Counsel (Criminal) as a professional engagement rather than a civil post. The impugned orders refusing renewal were challenged as arbitrary and contrary to the Legal Rememberancer Manual, with the High Court holding that such engagement, while not a civil appointment, must still be guided by reasonable, nonarbitrary parameters and subject to judicial review under principles laid down in prior decisions.
(B) The core legal principles are that (i) District Government Counsel are appointed on a professional basis and do not hold a civil post, (ii) the State is not entirely unfettered in renewal decisions and must act bona fide and reasonably, (iii) judicial review applies to assess arbitrariness under Article 14, and (iv) the High Court may not substitute its view for the States assessment but can intervene if the parameters are unreasonable.
Facts of the case:
The State of U.P. refused to renew the term of several District Government Counsel (Criminal), who filed writ petitions alleging arbitrariness and violation of the Legal Rememberancer Manual despite satisfactory performance reviews and recommendations. The High Court set aside the States orders for 10 petitioners while dismissing 24 others, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the impugned action arbitrary and not bona fide, and held that the State must apply reasonable, nonarbitrary parameters for retention. This Court acknowledged the High Courts overreach in substituting its view but ultimately disposed of the appeals as infructuous due to elapsed tenure.
Issues:
Whether the High Court erred in substituting its view for the States decision, whether renewal of District Government Counsel attracts any legal right, and what scope of judicial review applies to such professional engagements.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Courts intervention was partly justified on grounds of arbitrariness, but the proper approach is to assess whether the States parameters are reasonable and nonarbitrary; appeals are infructuous as the tenure has expired, and any future appointments remain possible.
Result:
Appeals disposed of accordingly without ordering costs; no relief granted at this stage, with directions to approach for future vacancies per the Legal Rememberancer Manual.
(A) The relevant statute is Service Law, which governs the tenure and renewal of District Government Counsel (Criminal) as a professional engagement rather than a civil post. The impugned orders refusing renewal were challenged as arbitrary and contrary to the Legal Rememberancer Manual, with the High Court holding that such engagement, while not a civil appointment, must still be guided by reasonable, nonarbitrary parameters and subject to judicial review under principles laid down in prior decisions.
(B) The core legal principles are that (i) District Government Counsel are appointed on a professional basis and do not hold a civil post, (ii) the State is not entirely unfettered in renewal decisions and must act bona fide and reasonably, (iii) judicial review applies to assess arbitrariness under Article 14, and (iv) the High Court may not substitute its view for the States assessment but can intervene if the parameters are unreasonable.
Facts of the case:
The State of U.P. refused to renew the term of several District Government Counsel (Criminal), who filed writ petitions alleging arbitrariness and violation of the Legal Rememberancer Manual despite satisfactory performance reviews and recommendations. The High Court set aside the States orders for 10 petitioners while dismissing 24 others, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the impugned action arbitrary and not bona fide, and held that the State must apply reasonable, nonarbitrary parameters for retention. This Court acknowledged the High Courts overreach in substituting its view but ultimately disposed of the appeals as infructuous due to elapsed tenure.
Issues:
Whether the High Court erred in substituting its view for the States decision, whether renewal of District Government Counsel attracts any legal right, and what scope of judicial review applies to such professional engagements.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Courts intervention was partly justified on grounds of arbitrariness, but the proper approach is to assess whether the States parameters are reasonable and nonarbitrary; appeals are infructuous as the tenure has expired, and any future appointments remain possible.
Result:
Appeals disposed of accordingly without ordering costs; no relief granted at this stage, with directions to approach for future vacancies per the Legal Rememberancer Manual.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-Leave granted in S.L.Ps.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. This Court while granting leave stayed the operation of the judgment by an order dated 26.4.1999. The said interim order of stay passed by this Court was confirmed by an order dated 31.1.2000. 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.
10. 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 Nos. 963-64 of 2000) disposed of today.
11. 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.
Appeals disposed of accordingly.
**************
00039
00040
00041