STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 13 S.C.R. 265 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
V. 
ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9029 of 2012 etc.) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Legal Rememberancer's Manual (Uttar Pradesh): 
A 
B 
c 
Para 7.06 to 7.08 -
Renewal of term of District 
Government Counsel - Declined by State Government -
Order set aside by High Court -
Held: The right of 
consideration for renewal for the specified period is a 
legitimate right vested in an applicant and he can be deprived · 0 
of such right and be declined renewal where his work is 
unsatisfactory and is so reported by the specified authorities 
- It was not permissible for the government to take recourse 
F 
to Para 7.06 (3) in the manner in which it has done - High 
Court has held that the request for renewal has been declined 
E 
by a decision en block, without considering the 
recommendation of District Judge and District Magistrate -
The arbitrary act of the State cannot be excluded from the 
ambit of judicial review merely on the ground that it is a 
contractual matter - Besides, the order is a non-speaking 
order which suffers from non-application of mind - However, 
High Court should not have directed appointments while 
regulating the age - There is right of consideration, but none 
can claim right to appointment - Thus, while declining to 
interfere with judgment of High Court, it is directed that the 
government shall consider cases of respondents for renewal 
G 
in accordance with the procedure prescribed and criteria laid 
down under Paras 7. 06 to 7. 08 of the LR Manual 
expedit[ously - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 16 
- Interpretation of statut1...s - Administrative law - Judicial 
265 
H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 
A review - Non-speaking administrative order. 
B 
Words and Phrases: 
Expressions, "without assigning any cause" and "without 
existence of any cause" - Connotation of 
The respondent in C.A. No. 9029 of 2012 was 
appointed as District Government Council on 17.9.2004. 
His term was renewed on 3.3.2006 for a period upto 
5.3.2007. He made an application for renewal of his term 
c on 19.1.2007. The District Judge and the District 
Magistrate gave their recommendations for renewal of his 
term. However, the :State Government, by order dated 
3.4.2008, declined the renewal resulting in cancellation of 
engagement of the respondent alongwith several others. 
0 He filed a writ petitio
1n before the High Court, which set 
aside the order dated 3.4.2008 and granted further relief 
to the effect that renewal of the respondent's term be 
considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of 
L.R. Manual, if he had not crossed the age of 60 years but 
E if he had attained the age of 60 years and had not 
reached the age of 62, his case be considered for 
extension upto the age of 62 years. Aggrieved, the State 
Government filed the appeal. The other appeals were filed 
In similar circumstances. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Under the provisions of the Legal 
Remembrancer's Manual, the appointments are to be 
made and renewal to be considered upon the 
G recommendation of tile District Officer and the District 
Judge [Para 67.6 to 7.8]. 
The rules also state the factors which are to weigh 
in the mind of the recommending authority while 
recommending or declining to recommend renewal of 
H 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM 
267 
term of the government pleaders. The rules provide a A 
procedure and even require the State Government to 
consider the case for renewal of the government counsel 
whose term is coming to an end. The scheme of para 7.06 
of the Manual is that the appointment of a government 
pleader is to be made for a period of one year and at the 
8 
end of the period, the District Officer in consultation with 
the District Judge is required to submit a report on the 
worlc and conduct to the Legal Remembrancer together 
with the work done, in Form 9. It is only when his work 
or conduct is found to be unsatisfactory that it is so C 
reported to the government for appropriate orders. If the 
report is satisfactory, the rule requires that he may be 
furnished with a deed of engagement in form I, for a term 
not exceeding three years, on his first engagement. Thus, 
the onus is shifted to the State to show that it had acted 
in accordance with the prescribed procedure and its D 
action does not suffer from the vice of discrimination and 
arbitrari
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.