STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus RAKESH KUMAR KESHARI & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 04-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·A 
B 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1060 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
RAKESH KUMAR KESHARI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3935 of 2011) 
MAY 04, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L.GOKHALE, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
c 
Articles 14 and 226-Writ Petition challenging order of 
state Government by which it returned the panel list of 
candidates for appointment of Assistant District Government 
Counsel (Criminal) to District Magistrate and directed him to 
re-advertise the posts-High Court settirg aside the order of 
0 the Government and directing the Government to make the 
appointments from the panel submitted by District 
Magistrate-Held: In the matter of engagement of A.D.G.C. 
(Criminal) a concept of public office does not come into play. 
The choice is that of the Government; and none can claim a 
E right to be appointed because it is a position of great trust and 
confidence-The directions given by the High Court in the 
impugned Judgment run contrary to the we/I-settled principles 
of law and, therefore, cannot be upheld - The Judgment of 
the High Court is set aside. 
F 
JUDICIAL REVIEW· 
Appointment/renewal of Assistant District Government 
Counsel (Criminal) -
Judicial review of-Principles 
explained-Recommendation by District Magistrate and the 
G District Judge to renew the term of two incumbents-
Government asking the District Magistrate to advertise the 
posts-Posts advertised and two incumbents also applied-
Two panel lists sent by the District Judge submitted by District 
Magistrate to Government-Government asking the District 
H 
1060 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. RAKESH KUMAR 
1061 
KESHARI & ANR. 
Magistrate to re advertise the posts-In the writ petition. filed 
A 
by the two incumbents High Court setting aside the order 'of 
State Government and directing it to make the appointments 
from the lists sent by District Magistrate-Held: In view of 
provisions of para 7.06, 7.07 and 21.07 of the L.R. Manual 
and in view of poor performance of the incumbents the 
B 
decision of the State Government not to accept the· 
recommendation of the District Magistrate cannot be said to· 
be arbitrary~ The right of the State Government to engage, 
disengage and renew the term of its counsel and Law Officers. 
in keeping with the need to best safeguard the public intereSf c 
and monetary considerations, suitability of the incumben(anCt 
the interest of the Gover.nment as the client, will have tO /Jee 
upheld-L.R. Manual-Para 7.06, · 7.07 and 21.07. 
Respondents nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as 
Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) on b 
contract basis. The District Judge, by communication 
dated 31.07.2002, recommended to the District Magistrate 
to extend their terms. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, 
by communication dated 31.07.2002, recommended to 
the State Government 'to extend the terms of the 
E 
respondents. However, the posts were advertised and 
the respondents also applied for the said posts.· 
Applications from 29 candidates were received. The 
District Judge sent to the District Magistrate two panels 
of candidates, each containing 5 names stating that the 
F 
work, conduct and legal knowledge of the remaining 
candidates was satisfactory. Thereupon, the District 
Magistrate addressed a communication dated 01-05-2004 
to the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow. 
informing him that he agreed with the view of the District G 
Judge that the work, conduct and legal knowledge of all 
the candidates was satisfactory and he was forwarding 
necessary data of 29 candid~tes. The Special S~~retary 
and Upper Legal Remembrancer, by order dated i.9.2004 
H 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A directed the District Magistrate to submit another panel/ 
list for appointment to the posts of ADGC (Criminal), but 
the District Magistrate declined to submit another list 
stating that a panel list had already been submitted. The 
Special Secretary and Upper Legal Remembrancer by 
B letter dated 18.3.2005 returned the first panel list sent by 
the District Magistrate without assigning any reason and 
directed the District Magistrate to readvertise the posts 
of A.D.G.C. (Criminal). The District Magistrate re-
advertised the said posts on 1.4.2005. The respondents 
c filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to 
quash the order dated 18.03.2005 as well as the 
advertisement dated 01.04.2005. It was further prayed that 
the 
appellants 
be 
directed 
to 
consider the 
recommendations of the District Magi

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