STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus NETRA PAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 21-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P, AND ORS. 
v. 
NETRA PAL SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 21, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Legal Remembrancer's Manual : 
Para 7.06-District Government Counsel-Renewal of term-State. 
C Government declining to renew term of D.G.Cs.-High Court directing State 
Government to renew their term-Held, claimants have not been.holding 
office of District Government Counsel for a long time-Writ petition filed by 
them having become infrucluous are liable to be dismissed as such.' ' . ... 
D 
E 
F 
Judicial Review: 
State Government's decision declining to renew term of District 
Government Counsel-Judicial review of-Jn view of the legal principles as 
regards power of judicial review of High Court laid down in State of U.P. v. 
Johri Mal*, appeals disposed of 
Respondents were District Government Counsel in the State of U.P. The 
State Government declined to renew their term. They filed writ petitions before 
the High Court which directed the State Government to renew their term .. 
Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeals. 
Disposing of the ,appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The respondents have not been holding the office of the District 
Government Counsel for a long time. Therefor:!, at this stage, it 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 have become infructuous and, thus, 
G are liable to be dismissed as such. They, however; may, as and when vacancies 
arise, file applications in terms of the Legal Rememberancer's Manual for 
their appointment as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors. 
(553-B-CI 
2. Keeping in view the fact that the legal principles as regards High 
I-I 
530 
-. 
STA TE v. N.P. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 
531 
Court's power of judicial review in such matters have been laid down by this A 
Court in the case of Johri Mal*, nothing further is required, to be said in 
these appeals. (533-E) 
*State of U.P. and Anr. v. Johri Mal, (2004( 4 SCC 714, relied on. 
Harpal Singh Chauhan and Ors. v. State ofU.P., (1993( 3 SCC 552 and B 
State ofU.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Ors., (1995( 6 SCC 527, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2626-2635 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 82.99 of the Allahabad High Court C 
in W.P.Nos. 1915(MB), 1499(MB), 1916(MB), 1925(MB), 1929(MB), 1934(MB), 
195l(MB), 2029(MB) and 2963(MB) of 1998. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 2635, 2636, 2637-38 of2004. 
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Deepti, R. Mehrotra, Ashok 
K. Srivastava, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ashok Kumar Sharma, K.K. Gutpa, 
Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, R.D. Upadhyay, Kunwar C.M. Khan and Rakesh 
K. Sharma for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted in S.L.Ps. 
D 
E 
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 F 
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 G 
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 ofU.P. acted arbitrarily in not renewing their term as their performance H 
532 
SUPREME COURT.REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 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. 
B 
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 profe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.