LexSTATE OF U.P. versus RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P.
v.
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 16, 1995
{J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, J.I.]
U.P. Legal Remembcrancer's Manual : Chapter VII-Paras 7.06, 7.08
and 7.13.
A
B
State of Uttar Pradesh-Additional District Govemment Counsel-Ap-
C
pointme11t---Nature of-Held only a professional engagement-Not an ap-
pointment to the post in Govemment service.
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 14
Stat~Arbitrary action-Quashing of-Additional District Govemment D
Counsel-Tenn of appointment-Refusal to renew on non- existent ground
held arbitrary and quashed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 24 (3).
~
Additional District Govemment Counsel-Appointm~nt of-Refusal to E
-
grant renewal of tenn-Section 24(3) held inapplicable to such a case.
Respondents 1 to 3 were appointed as Additional District Govern·
ment Counsel (Criminal) in the State of U.P. for a fixed term and their
term was renewed from time to time. An order dated 1.10.1992 issued by
the State Government denying further renewal to them was quashed by the F
High Court on the ground that it was an arbitrary action of the State
Government. The High Court held that the reason given by the State
Government for refusing to consider the renewal i.e. there was no recom-
/
mendation made by the District Authorities for making the renewal as
required under the provisions of U.P. Legal Remembrancer Manual was G
non-existent while in fact the report of the District Officer was favourable
to the respondents and the District Judge had really recommended renewal
of their term. Against the decision of the High Court, State preferred
appeal before this Court.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that (i) refusal to H
383
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
renew their term was arbitrary and thus liable to be struck down under
Article 14; (ii) they do not seek consequential rdier or reappointment after
the State Government's action was held arbitrary; and (iii) in view of
provisions contained in the Manual and section 24(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 the appointment of an advocate as a District
B
c
D
Government Counsel \\1as an employment to a post in govern1nent service
and not a professional engagement entitling him to automatic renewal upto
the superannuation age of 62 years subject to satisfactory confidential
report.
Allowing the State's appeal in part, this Court
HELD : 1. In view of the clear provision in clause (3) or para 7.06 of
the (U.P. Legal Rememberancer's Manual the appointment or a legal
practioner as a District Government Counsel is only professional engage-
ment. The appointment being for a fixed term and requiring expres.c
renewal in the manner provided in the Manual, there is no basis to contend
that it is not a
professional engagement or a legal practitioner but
appointment to post in Government service which continues till attaining
the age of superannuation. Para 7.13 or the Manual'is a restriction on
appointment of a legal practitioner as a District Government Counsel if
his age exceeds 62 years and it is not a provision conferring a right on the
E
appointee to continue till he attains the age or 62 years. Section 24(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has no application to a case of
renewai of appointment. (387-F-G, BJ
F
Kuman Sluilekha Vidy01thi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1991)
1 sec 212, relied on.
Hapal Singh Chauhan and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1993) 3 SCC 552;
distinguished.
2. The State action of refusing renewal can be quashed if it is
arbitrary. Admittedly, the only ground on which the State Government
G sought to support its action is found to be non- existent in the record. This
leads to the inescapable conclusion that the action of refusing renewal to
respondents by order dated 1.10.1992 was arbitrary and on a ·non-existent
ground. This view taken by the High Court cannot, therefore, be faulted.
However in the circumstances of the case grant of any further relief to the
H respondents is inappropriate. Accordingly, the High Courts' order is
..
..
STATE v. R.C. SHARMA [J.S. VERMA, J.]
385
modified and the consequential relief to reconsider the respondents for A
renewal of their term is set aside. [388-B, D, H, 389-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9374 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12.92 of the Allahabad High B
Court in W.P. No. 4303 (M/B) of 1992.
AK: Srivastava forExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.