SAMARENDRA DAS, ADVOCATE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 16-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SAMARENDRA DAS, ADVOCATE 
V. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 16, 2004 
-' 
(V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.H. KAPADIA, J.] 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/West Bengal Assis/ant Public 
Prosecutors (Qualifications, Melhod of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) 
C Rules, 1974/West Bengal Services (Appointment, Probation and Confirmation) 
Rules, 1979-Section 15/Rules 3 and 4/Rule 6-Assistant Public Proseculor-
Appointment under 1974 Rules-Termination of service-Wril petition under 
Article 226 of Constitution entertained by Single Judge of High Court-Division 
Bench of High Court held that writ petition was not entertainable by High 
Court and case transferred to State Administrative Tribunal-On appeal, Held: 
D In view of the provisions of the Rules, the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor 
was a civil post under State Government in terms of Section 15 of the Ac/-
Hence, the case was not entertainable by High Court under Article 226, but 
by State Adminislrative Tribunal-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 
and 323A(I). 
E 
Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor by State 
Government. On his services being terminated, he filed writ petition which 
was allowed by Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the 
termination order. On appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that it 
was not open to the petitioner to approach High Court under Article 226 
p of the Constitution and Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the 
same after coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, 
). 
G 
H 
because the petitioner was not an officer or servant of the court 
subordinate to High Court and he was merely assisting the Court of 
Judicial Magistrate on behalf of the State Government. The matter was 
transferred to State Administrative Tribunal. 
In the Special Leave Petition, the issue for consideration was whether 
the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was a civil post under Section 15 
of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
532 
SAMARENDRA DAS v. STATE 
533 
HELD: 1. The post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was Civil Post A 
under the State in terms of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals 
Act, 1985. High Court was right in its conclusion that the dispute lay before 
the Administrative Tribunal and, consequently, the High Court was right 
in transferring the writ petition to the State Administrative Tribunal. 
[536-A, B[ B 
2. A bare reading of Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Assistant 
Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions 
of Service) Rules, 1974 indicate that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor 
is a civil post, and consequently, all service matters concerning such posts 
shall fall within the jurisdiction, powers and authority of State C 
Administrative Tribunals under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals 
Act, 1985. Further, the order of termination passed in the present matter 
also indicates that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated as 
Assistant Public Prosecutor, under Rule 6 of the West Bengal Services 
(Appointment, Probation and Confirmation) Rules, 1979 on payment of 
one month's salary in lieu of notice. This also indicates that the post of D 
Assistant Public Prosecutor was a Civil Post under tJie State in terms of 
Section 15(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence the present 
dispute regarding termination of service of Assistant Public Prosecutor 
came within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal under 
Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 
E 
[536-G, H; 537-A-C) 
3. In order to come under Article 323A(l), the employee must hold 
his employment under the Union or under a State Government. In the 
present case, the petitioner held his employment under the State 
Government. Therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, p 
try and dispose of this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
(537-D, Ej 
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 127, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 22866 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.2003 of the Calcutta High 
Court in A.F.O. No. 1055 of 2003 (M.R.T. No. 3194/99). 
G 
H 
• 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S. C.R. 
A 
Petitioner-In-Person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KAPADIA, J. The question before us is: Whether the post of Assistant 
Public Prosecutor (herei

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.