# Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. &Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1347
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-05-07
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 4794 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44410
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

A. Writ-Article 14 Constitution of IndiaPara7.3& 7.10 of Legal Remembrancer's
Manual-
Appointment
of
District
Government
Counsel
-
Fairness
in
manner of power exercised - Principal
laid down-Held decision-making process
suffers from vice of arbitrariness and
unreasonableness
-
Writ
petition
allowed.

B. Writ - Article 226 of Constitution of
India -Power of judicial review- Whether
power exercised by authority is quasijudicial or administrative-Nature of order
is relevant factor.

C. Writ-Nature of post of District
Government Counsel - Not only officers
of the Court, but also representative of
the State - It is a position of great trust
and confidence - Applicability of the
Provision of Article 14 - Appointment of
Government Counsel at the level of
District level as well of High Court level
is not just professional engagement
but to it public element is also attached
- Requiring assessment of merit of the
candidates by a credible process.(E-1)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,796 of 120,411. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39796 for what follows._

1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1347

46. Since application for grant of
leave to appeal has been rejected, the
memorandum of appeal also does not
survive. Consequently, the appeal is also
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 4794 of 2019

Santosh Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. &Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Achyut Jee

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Writ-Article 14 Constitution of IndiaPara7.3& 7.10 of Legal Remembrancer's
Manual-
Appointment
of
District
Government
Counsel
-
Fairness
in
manner of power exercised - Principal
laid down-Held decision-making process
suffers from vice of arbitrariness and
unreasonableness
-
Writ
petition
allowed.

B. Writ - Article 226 of Constitution of
India -Power of judicial review- Whether
power exercised by authority is quasijudicial or administrative-Nature of order
is relevant factor.

C. Writ-Nature of post of District
Government Counsel - Not only officers
of the Court, but also representative of
the State - It is a position of great trust
and confidence - Applicability of the
Provision of Article 14 - Appointment of
Government Counsel at the level of
District level as well of High Court level
is not just professional engagement
but to it public element is also attached
- Requiring assessment of merit of the
candidates by a credible process.(E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Achyut Jee, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj
Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate
General,
appeared
on
behalf
of
respondents.

2. The present petition raises a very
important question pertaining to the
appointments of District Government
Counsel (in short D.G.C.) at the District
Court, Ballia. The problem is recurring in
nature and although the law on the
question is fairly well settled, however,
the present petition raises concerns with
regard to the manners of powers exercised
in making the appointments of D.G.C. at
the District Courts.

3. The allegation made by the
petitioner in brief are as follows:

4. The petitioner is an Advocate and
was appointed as Assistant District
Government Counsel on 14.1.2015 under
the provision of paragraph 7.10 of the
Legal
Remembrancer's
Manual
(hereinafter referred to 'L.R. Manual')
which governs the manner of appointment
of District Government Counsels in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner
discharged his duties till 01.05.2016 and
his appointment was renewed from time
to time.

5. The present writ petition has been
filed stating that in pursuance of an
advertisement
issued
on
08.12.2017
applications were invited for appointment
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the post of D.G.C., A.D.G.C. and
Assistant
D.G.C.
in
terms
of
the
provisions of Para 7.3 of L.R. Manual, a
copy of the said advertisement has been
filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
The
petitioner,
desirous
of
being
appointed, also applied under the said
advertisement for being considered for
appointment.

6. In terms of the applications
received under the said advertisement, the
District
Magistrate
sent
all
the
applications to the District Judge, Ballia,
who in turn, formed a Committee of three
judges' for shortlisting for recommending
the
eligible
candidates
for
being
considered for appointment in pursuance
of the advertisement dated 08.12.2017.
The said Committee constituted by the
District Judge, Ballia recommended the
name of 254 counsels as suitable for
being considered for appointment and the
same list was sent by the District
Magistrate
to
the
Legal
Remembrancer/State Government. The
State Government returned the said list of
254 counsels as short-listed by the
Committee with a direction to the District
Magistrate, Ballia to select three names
against one post as advertised in the
advertisement
dated
08.12.2017.
In
pursuance of the said directions of the
State Government, the District Magistrate
once again sent all the records to the
District Judge, Ballia for suggesting the
names of three persons against one
vacancy as was directed by the State
Government. The District Judge, Ballia
once again formed a Committee of four
members
and
the
said
Committee
interviewed the applicants and shortlisted
51 names as considered appropriate by
them
for
being
considered
for
appointment, the said list of 51 names was
sent to the District Magistrate, Ballia, who
in turn, forwarded the said list to the State
Government/Legal Remembrancer for its
consideration and suitable directions. The
list of earlier 254 candidates and the
subsequent list of 51 candidates has been
filed by the petitioner as Annexure-13 to
the writ petition. The petitioner claims
that his name appears in both the said
lists. It is stated and argued at the bar that
instead of selecting the candidates out of
the said 51 shortlisted candidates, the
Under Secretary, State of U.P. vide his
letter dated 21.8.2018 sent a letter to the
District
Magistrate
asking
him
to
recommend the name of 19 persons (as
mentioned in the letter) for being
appointed for a period of 14-14 days. The
said list was not carved out, out of the 51
candidates list that was initially forwarded
by the District Magistrate (Annexure-13
to
the
writ
petition)
The
District
Magistrate, Ballia, on the basis of the said
directives, issued by Under Secretary,
recommended the said 19 names as were
forwarded to him by the Under Secretary
vide his letter dated August 2018 without
any change for being appointed in terms
of provisions of Para 7.10 of the L.R.
Manual. The State Government, vide its
order dated 24.11.2018, selected 14
counsels out of the list of 19 counsels as
sent by the District Magistrate, Ballia for
being appointed on the post of D.G.C.,
A.D.G.C. and Assistant D.G.C. under the
provisions of para 7.10 of L.R. Manual. It
is these appointments that are under
challenge in this writ petition.

7. After entertaining the writ petition
we had called for instructions from the
Standing Counsel and also the records
pertaining
to
the
appointments
as
recommended by the State Government
only to verify and peruse the decision
1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1349
making process by which the said
appointments were made ignoring the
recommendations made by the Committee
constituted by the District Judge, Ballia.

8. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned
Additional Advocate General, appeared
and assisted the Court and forwarded the
records pertaining to the manner of
appointment. He also brought on record
the instructions received through the
District Magistrate, Ballia in respect of
the averments made in the writ petition.
We have taken the said instructions on
record and perused the original record in
details. The averments made in the writ
petition
with
regard
to
the
recommendations made by the Committee
constituted by the District Judge of the 51
candidates and the subsequent forwarding
all the said 51 names by the District Judge
to the State Government are not in
dispute.

9. From perusal of documents on
record as well as the instructions, it is
revealed that on 23.8.2018 Sri Brajesh
Pathak, Minister for Justice, Political
Pension and Additional Power Source,
vide letter No. 2064, addressed to the
Chief Secretary (Justice), the Hon'ble
Minister directed the Chief Secretary that
with regard to the appointment of
Government Counsels on various posts in
the District Ballia, the names of the under
written counsels be called for from the
District
Magistrate
along
with
his
proposal. In the said letter, the name of 19
counsels was recorded along with their
mobile numbers, a copy of the said letter
is extracted here-in-below:

la[;k ,e 253@l= U;k;0&3@2018

czts'k ikBd dk;kZy;% d{k la0&91&91, eq[;
Hkou

ea=h m0iz0 lfpoky;

fo/kk;h
,oa
U;k;]
nwjHkk"k%
0522&2238074@22132921⁄4dk01⁄2

jktuSfrd isa'ku la[;k 2064@oh-vkbZ-ih-@foU;k-vfr-ÅtkZ jk-isa-@2018

vfrfjDr ÅtkZ L=ksr y[kuÅ

fnukad 23-08-18

izeq[k lfpo] U;k;A

d`i;k tuin cfy;k esa 'kkldh; vf/koDrkvksa
ds fofHkUu inksa ij fjfDr;ksa ds lkis{k fuEufyf[kr
vf/koDrvksa dks 14&14 fnu ds fy, vLFkk;h :i ls
vkc) djus gsrq ftykf/kdkjh ls rRdky izLrko izkIr
dj vxzsrj dk;Zokgh gsrq izLrqr djs%&

1- Jh latho dqekj flag iq= Jh dsnkjukFk
flag 1⁄4eks0&94523507521⁄2] ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

2- Jh fou; dqekj flag] iq= Jh vkuUns'oj
izrki
flag
1⁄4eks0&94507805901⁄2]
ft0'kk0vf/k0]
flfoyA

3- Jh lEiw.kkZuUn nwcs] iq= Jh gfj'kadj
nwcs1⁄4eks0&94537760851⁄2] ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

4- Jh lq/khj dqekj feJk] iq= Jh 'kksdgj.k feJ
1⁄4eks0&94507800291⁄2]lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

5- Jh vfuy ik.Ms;] iq= jh dsnkj ukFk ik.Ms;
1⁄4eks0&81157790091⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

6- Jh lanhi dqekj frokjh iq= Jh ohjsUnz frokjh
1⁄4eks0&94156591311⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

7- Jh fou; dqekj flag iq= Jh d`".k uUn flag
1⁄4eks0&98394637301⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

8- Jh g"kZ ukjk;.k izlkn iq= Lo0 'kqdj izlkn
1⁄4eks0&94545409081⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

9- Jh ujns'oj feJ iq= Jh lfPpnkuUn feJ
1⁄4eks0&96703600371⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

10- Jh lanhi dqekj xqIrk iq= Jh vo/k fcgkjh
izlkn 1⁄4eks0&99366073671⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

11- Jh vt; dqekj jk; iq= Jh LokehukFk jk;
1⁄4eks0&94520999581⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

12- Jh fot; 'kadj ik.Ms; iq= Jh cky d`".k
ik.Ms; 1⁄4eks0&94505322551⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

13- Jh fofiu dqekj feJ iq= Lok0 ckys'oj feJ
1⁄4eks0&94507765611⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

14- Jh fouksn dqekj Hkkj}kt iq= Lo0 euksxh
1⁄4eks0&94158299551⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

15- Jh eukst ik.Ms; iq= Jh jke foykl ik.Ms;
1⁄4eks0&94156947891⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]flfoyA

16- Jh daqt fcgkjh xqIrk iq= Lo0 jktsUnz izlkn
xqIrk1⁄4 eks0&94528662031⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]flfoyA
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17- Jh nhi ukjk;.k Bkdqj iq= Lo0 txUukFk Bkdqj
1⁄4eks0&94153618511⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]flfoyA

18- Jh c`t ukjk;.k jk; iq= Jh Bkdqj jk;
1⁄4eks0&94156575981⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

19- Jh eqjyh ;kno iq= Lo0 gfjuUnu ;kno
1⁄4eks0&94152499401⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]jktLoA

d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj rRdky dk;Zokgh djus dk
d"V djsaA
21-08-2018

1⁄4czts'k ikBd1⁄2

ea=h
fo/kk;h ,oa U;k; vfrfjDr ÅtkZ L=ksr
jktuSfrd isa'ku foHkkx mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

10. In pursuance of the said
direction by the Hon'ble Minister, the
Under Secretary, vide his letter dated
21.8.2018, wrote a letter to the District
Magistrate, Ballia directing him to send a
proposal for appointment of 19 persons as
were recommended by the Minister for
being appointed on 14 days basis. The
said letter was in sum and substance the
same as the letter dated 23.8.2018. Copy
of the said letter is being extracted herein-below:

la[;k&,e&252@lkr&U;k;&3&18
izs"kd]
vkse izdk'k
vuq lfpo]
mRrj izns'k 'kkluA
lsok esa]
ftykf/kdkjh]
cfy;kA
U;k; vuqHkkx&31⁄4fu;qfDr;kW1⁄2 y[kuÅ% fnukad 31
vxLr] 2018
fo"k;%&
tuin
cfy;k
esa
fjDr
'kkldh;
vf/koDrkvksa ds fofHkUu inksa ij 14&14 fnu ds
vkcU/ku ds laca/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk
funs'k
gqvk
gS
fd
tuin
cfy;k
esa
'kkldh;vf/koDrkvksa ds fofHkUUk fjDr inks ds lkis{k
fof/k ijke'khZ funsf'kdk ds lqlaxr izkfo/kkuksa ds
vuqlkj 14&14 fnu gsrq vLFkk;h :i ls vkc) fd;s
tkus ds laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj izLrko miyC/k djkus
dk d"V djs%&
1- Jh latho dqekj flag iq= Jh
dsnkjukFk flag 1⁄4eks0&94523507521⁄2] ft0'kk0vf/k0]
QkStnkjhA

2- Jh fou; dqekj flag] iq= Jh vkuUns'oj
izrki
flag
1⁄4eks0&94507805901⁄2]
ft0'kk0vf/k0]
flfoyA

3- Jh lEiw.kkZuUn nwcs] iq= Jh gfj'kadj
nwcs1⁄4eks0&94537760851⁄2] ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

4- Jh lq/khj dqekj feJk] iq= Jh 'kksdgj.k
feJ
1⁄4eks0&94507800291⁄2]lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]
QkStnkjhA

5- Jh vfuy ik.Ms;] iq= Jh dsnkj ukFk
ik.Ms;
1⁄4eks0&81157790091⁄2]
lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

6- Jh lanhi dqekj frokjh iq= Jh ohjsUnz
frokjh
1⁄4eks0&94156591311⁄2]
lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

7- Jh fou; dqekj flag iq= Jh d`".k uUn
flag
1⁄4eks0&98394637301⁄2]
lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

8- Jh g"kZ ukjk;.k izlkn iq= Lo0 'kqdj izlkn
1⁄4eks0&94545409081⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

9- Jh ujns'oj feJ iq= Jh lfPpnkuUn feJ
1⁄4eks0&96703600371⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

10- Jh lanhi dqekj xqIrk iq= Jh vo/k fcgkjh
izlkn
1⁄4eks0&99366073671⁄2]
lgk0

ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

11- Jh vt; dqekj jk; iq= Jh LokehukFk
jk;
1⁄4eks0&94520999581⁄2]
lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

12- Jh fot; 'kadj ik.Ms; iq= Jh cky d`".k
ik.Ms;
1⁄4eks0&94505322551⁄2]
lgk0

ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

13- Jh fofiu dqekj feJ iq= Lok0 ckys'oj
feJ
1⁄4eks0&94507765611⁄2]
lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

14- Jh fouksn dqekj Hkkj}kt iq= Lo0 euksxh
1⁄4eks0&94158299551⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]QkStnkjhA

15- Jh eukst ik.Ms; iq= Jh jke foykl
ik.Ms;
1⁄4eks0&94156947891⁄2]
lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]flfoyA

16- Jh daqt fcgkjh xqIrk iq= Lo0
jktsUnz izlkn xqIrk 1⁄4eks0&94528662031⁄2] lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]flfoyA

17- Jh nhi ukjk;.k Bkdqj iq= Lo0
txUukFk Bkdqj 1⁄4eks0&94153618511⁄2] lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0]flfoyA
1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1351

18- Jh c`t ukjk;.k jk; iq= Jh Bkdqj jk;
1⁄4eks0&94156575981⁄2] lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

19- Jh eqjyh ;kno iq= Lo0 gfjuUnu ;kno
1⁄4eks0&94152499401⁄2]
lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0]jktLoA

Hkonh;
g0 viBuh;
1⁄4vkse izdk'k1⁄2
vuq lfpoA

11. In pursuance of these two
directives the District Magistrate, Ballia
recommended the names of the persons as
directed by the Under Secretary for being
appointed. The said recommendation was
made by the District Magistrate on
16.9.2018 which is extracted here-inbelow:

la[;k&Mh&1374@lkr&U;k;&3&18
izs"kd]

ftyk eftLVaV

cfy;kA
lsok esa]

fo'ks"k lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kklu

U;k; vuqHkkHkx 1⁄4fu;qfDr;kW1⁄2

y[kuÅA

la[;k% 699@U;k; lgk0
fo"k;%&tuin cfy;k esa fjDr 'kkldh; vf/koDrkvksa
ds fofHkUu inksa ij 14&14 fnu ds vkca/ku ds laca/k
esaA

egksn;]

d`i;k] mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklu ds i=
la[;k&,e&253@lkr&U;k;&3&18 fnukad 21-082018 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds
}kjk tuin cfy;k esa 'kkldh; vf/koDrkvksa ds
fofHkUUk fjDr inks ds lkis{k fof/k ijke'khZ funsf'kdk
ds lqlaxr izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj 14&14 fnuksa gsrq
vLFkkbZ :i ls vkc) fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa
fu;ekuqlkj izLrko miyC/k djkus dk funsZ'k fn;k
x;k gSaA

2& 'kklu ds i= esa dqy 19 'kkldh;
vf/koDrkvksa ds uke ds lEeq[k inuke Hkh vafdr gSa]
dk mYys[k gSa] ftlds dze esa i=kafdr vf/koDrkx.k
}kjk 14&14 fnuksa ds vLFkk;h vkcU/ku ds fy,
vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks fuEuor gS%&
dze
la[;
k
vf/koDrk dk uke
Inuke
1
Jh latho dqekj flag]
iq=&Jh dsnkjukFk flag
xzke
o
iksLV&'kkgiqj
Fkkuk
xMokj
tuin
cfy;kA
eks0ua0&9452350752
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
2
Jh vfuy ik.Ms; iq=&Jh
dsnkjukFk
ik.Ms;]
irk&xzke o iksLV&jsorh
tuin cfy;kA eks0ua0&
8115577+9009
vij
ftyk
'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3
Jh lq/khj dekj feJ
iq=&Jh 'kksdgj.k feJ]
irk&xzke&lqgoy
iksLV&dqlkSjk
Fkkuk
ckalMhg
jksM
tuin
cfy;kA
eks0ua0
9450780029
Lkgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
31⁄411⁄2 Jh lanhi dqekj frokjh
iq=&Jh ohjsUnz frokjh]
xzke o iksLV&fprcM+xkao
Fkkuk fprcM+kxkao tuin
cfy;kA
eks0
ua0
8353985535@941565913
1
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(2) Jh fou; dqekj flag]
iq=&Jh d`".kkuUn flag]
xzke o iksLV&jkeuxj
Fkkuk
nksdVh
tuin
cfy;kA
eks0ua0&9839463730
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(3) Jh g"kZukjk;.k izlkn]
iq=&Lo0 'kwdj izlkn]
xzke&pMoka cjoka Fkkuk
fldUnjiqj
tuin
cfy;kA
eks0ua0&9454540908
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(4) Jh unsZ'oj feJ] iq=&Jh
lfPPknkuUn feJ xzke o
iksLV& txnsok Fkkuk
cSfj;k tuin cfy;kA
eks0ua0&9670360037
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(5) Jh lanhi dqekj xqIrk
iq=&vo/k fcgkjh izlkn
xzke&lgrokj
rg0
ckalMhg
tuin
cfy;kAeks0ua0
9936607367
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(6) Jh vt; dqekj jk; iq=
Jh
LokehukFk
jk;]
xzke&vkUkUn
uxj
rglhy cfy;k tuin
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cfy;kA
eks0ua0&
9452099958
3(7) Jh fot;'kadj ik.Ms;]
iq=&Jh ckyd`".k ik.Ms;
xzke&uUniqj iksLV&gYnh
tuin cfy;ka eks0ua0&
9450532255
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(8) Jh fofiu dqekj feJ]
iq=&Lo0 ckys'oj feJ
xzke&ik.Ms;iqj
iksLV&rk[kk
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2
3(9) Jh fouksn dqekj Hkkj}kt
iq=&Lo0
euksxh
xzke&xkSjhrky
?kkslk
iksLV&lksuMhg
tuin cfy;kA eks0ua0
9415829955
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2
4
Jh fou; dqekj flag
iq=&vkuUns'oj
izrki
flag] xkze&tkudh fuokl
cgknqjiqj
nsodyh
cfy;kA
eks0ua0
9450780590
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2
5
Jh eukst ik.Ms; iq=&Jh
jkefoykl
ik.Ms;]
xzke&ulhjkckn
iksLV&lkxjikyh tuin
cfy;kA
eks0ua0
9415694789
vij
ftyk
'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2
6
Jh
dqatfcgkjh
xqIrk
iq=&Lo0 jktsUnz izlkn
xqIrk]
xzke&
eSjhVkj
rg0&ckalMhg
tuin
cfy;kA
eks0ua0
9452866203
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2

Jh nhiukjk;.k Bkdqj
iq=&Lo0 tUukFk Bkdqj
xzke& dksrokyh gjiqj
cfy;kA
eks0ua0&
9415361851
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2
7
Jh lEiw.kkZuUn nwcs iq=&
Lo0 gfj'kadj nwcs] xzke o
iksLV&cs:vkjckjh rg0&
ckalMhg tuin cfy;kA
eks0 ua0 9453776085
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4jktLo1⁄2
8
Jh
cztukjk;.k
jk;]
iq=&Jh Bkdqj jk; xzke&
o
iksLV&thjkcLrh
lq[kiqjk cfy;kA eks0ua0&
9415657598
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4jktLo1⁄2

Jh eqjyh ;kno iq=&Lo0
gfjuUnj
;kno
xzke&ekyhiqj
iksLV&xkSokikj
tuin
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4jktLo1⁄2
cfy;kA
eks0ua0&
9792433975
9
--
vij
ftyk
'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4jktLo1⁄2

dqy foKkfIr fjDr inks
dh la[;k
18

foKkfIr fjDr inksa dk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS%&

D
la[;k
in dk uke

la[;k
1
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2

2
vij ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2

3
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2

4
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2

5
vij ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2

6
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4nhokuh1⁄2

7
ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4jktLo1⁄2

8
lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4jktLo1⁄2

9
vij ftyk 'kkldh;
vf/koDrk 1⁄4jktLo1⁄2

dqy foKkfIr fjDr inks
dh la[;k
18

Lkgk;d ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk QkStnkjh ds
ek= 8 in fjDr gSa] ftlds lkis{k 10 O;fDr;ksa dk
uke 'kklu ls izkIr gqvk gSaA bl izdkj 2 uke
vfrfjDr gks jgs gSaA vij ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
jktLo ds in ij Jh galjkt frokjh oSdfYid
O;oLFkk esa vkc) gksdj dk;Z dj jgs gSA 'kklu }kjk
fnukad 27-10-2017 dks iwoZ ls dk;Zjr 'kkldh;
vf/koDrkx.k dk uohuhdj.k u djrs gq, vkc}rk
lekIr fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i buds }kjk vLFkk;h
,oa oSdfYid :i esa nhokuh U;k;ky;ksa esa 'kkldh;
fgr esa oknksa dh iSjch gsrq lEc) fd;k x;k gSA

;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd orZeku le; esa l=
U;k;ky;ksa esa 'kklu }kjk vkc) Jh Hkjr frokjh ,oa
nso ukjk;.k ik.Ms; vij ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4QkStnkjh1⁄2 ,oa vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjhx.k dks 'kkldh;
fgr esa oknksa dh iSjch gsrq lEc) fd;k x;k gSA
1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1353

'kklu ds funsZ'k ds dze esa tuin esa 'kkldh;
vf/koDrkvksa ds fjDr inkas ij vkcU/ku gsrq foKkfIr
izdkf'kr djds izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij ek0 tuin
U;k;k/kh'k cfy;k }kjk laLrqr iSuy iqfyl foHkkx ls
pfj= lR;kiu djkdj 'kklu dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k
gSA ftl ij dfri; fcUnqvksa ij vk[;k okafNr gS]
ftls i`Fkd ls Hkstk tk;sxkA

mijksDr vf/koDrkx.k ftudk uke 'kklu ls
izkIr gqvk gS] muds dk;Z vuqHko] O;olkf;d vkpj.k]
xq.kkoxq.k ds lEcU/k esa u rks ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k
dh dksbZ vk[;k@laLrqfr izkIr gS vkSj u gh iqfyl
foHkkx ls mudk pfj= lR;kiu gh gqvk gSA

vr,o mijksDRk ds n`f"Vxr 'kkldh; fgr esa
oknksa ds iSjch gsrq esjk lqfopkfjr er gS fd 'kklu
dks Hksts x;s iSuy tks ek0 tuin U;k;k/kh'k cfy;k
}kjk laLrqr gS] esa ls gh fof/k ijke'khZ funsf'kdk ds
v/;k; 07 ds izLrj 7-10 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr
14&14 fnuksa ds fy, vLFkk;h oSdfYid O;oLFkk esa
'kkldh; vf/koDrkx.k ds fjDr inksa ij vkcU/ku gsrq
fu.kZ; ysus dk d"V djsaA

layXud mijksDrkuqlkjA
Hkonh;
g0 viBuh;
1⁄4Hkokuh flag [kaxkjkSr1⁄2
ftyk eftLVasV
cfy;kA
la[;k o frfFk mijksDrA

izfrfyfi% vuq lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kklu] U;k;
vuqHkkx&3 1⁄4fu;qfDr;kW1⁄2] y[kuÅ dks lwpukFkZ ,oa
vko';d
dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr A g0 viBuh;
1⁄4Hkokuh flag [kaxkjkSr1⁄2
ftyk eftLVasV cfy;kA

12. In pursuance of the said
recommendation, the Under Secretary sent a
letter to the District Magistrate conveying
that the proposal for appointment as sent for
19 names has been considered and the
following 14 names, out of the said 19 names
recommended,
are
being
sent
for
appointment to the various posts for a period
of 14 days under Para 7.10 of the L.R.
Manual, a copy of the said dated
29.11.2018 is extracted here-in-below:

la[;k&Mh0&1374@lkr&U;k;&3&18&48
1⁄4cfy;k1⁄2@2014
isz"kd]

vthr flag jkBkSj]

vuq lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

ftykf/kdkjh]

cfy;kA

U;k; vuqHkkx&3 1⁄4fu;qfDr;kW1⁄2 y[kuÅ % fnukad 29
uoEcj] 2018

fo"k;%& tuin cfy;k esa fjDr 'kkldh; vf/koDrkvksa ds
fofHkUu inksa ij 14&14 fnuksa ds vkcU/ku fd;s tkus ds
laca/k esaA

egksn;]
mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k&699@U;k; lgk0
fnukad 16-09-2018 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V
djsaA

2- mDr ds lUnHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk
gS fd fof/k ijke'khZ funsf'kdk ds izLrj&7-10 ds izkfo/kkuksa
ds vUrxZr fjDr inksa ds lkis{k vLFkk;h :i ls 14&14
fnuksa ds fy;s vkc) fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa vki }kjk
izsf"kr izLrko esa fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkvksa ds ukeksa ij
vuqeksnu iznku fd;k tkrk gS%&

1- Jh latho dqekj flag iq= Jh dsnkjukFk flag]
ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

2- Jh vfuy ik.Ms; iq= Jh dsnkjukFk flag] vij
ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

3- Jh lq/khj dqekj feJ iq= Jh 'kksdgj.k feJ]
lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

4- Jh lanhi dqekj frokjh iq= Jh ohjsUnz frokjh]
lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

5- Jh fou; dqekj flag iq= d`".kkuUn flag] lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

6- Jh unsZ'oj feJ iq= Jh lfPpnkuUn feJ] lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

7- Jh fot;'kadj ik.Ms; iq= Jh ckyd`".k ik.Ms;]
lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

8- Jh fouksn dqekj Hkkj}kt iq= Jh Lo0 euksxh]
lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] QkStnkjhA

9- Jh fou; dqekj flag iq= Jh vkuUns'oj izrki
flag] ft0'kk0vf/k0] nhokuhA

10- Jh eukst ik.Ms; iq= Jh jkefoykl ik.Ms;]
vij ft0'kk0vf/k0] nhokuhA

11- Jh nhiukjk;.k Bkdqj iq= Lo0 txUukFk Bkdqj]
lgk0 ft0'kk0vf/k0] nhokuhA
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12- Jh lEiw.kkZuUn nwcs iq= Lo0 gfj'kadj nqcs]
ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

13- Jh cztjkuk;.k jk; iq= Jh Bkdqj jk;] lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

14- Jh eqjyh ;kno iq= Lo0 gfjuUnu ;kno] lgk0
ft0'kk0vf/k0] jktLoA

vr% d`i;k mDr izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vko';d dk;Zokgh
djus dk d"V djsaA
Hkonh;]
1⁄4vthr flag jkBkSj1⁄2
vuq lfpoA

13. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned
Additional Advocate General, has brought
on record a letter dated 03.08.2018, sent by
the
Under
Secretary
to
the
District
Magistrate,
stating
that
the
earlier
recommendation of the District Magistrate
pertaining to 51 names shortlisted and sent,
did not observe certain provisions of the L.R.
Manual, as such, the said panel was being
sent back for being considered and sent
afresh after considering certain points as
mentioned
in
the
said
letter
dated
03.08.2018. Contents of the said letter dated
03.8.2018 are extracted herein-in-below:

la[;k&Mh0&999@lkr&U;k;&3&18&48
1⁄4cfy;k1⁄2@2014
isz"kd]

vkse izdk'k]

vuq lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA
lsok esa]

ftykf/kdkjh]

cfy;kA

U;k; vuqHkkx&3 1⁄4fu;qfDr;kW1⁄2 y[kuÅ % fnukad
3 vxLr] 2018
fo"k;%&tuin cfy;k esa ftyk@vij@lgk;d]
'kkldh; vf/koDrk 1⁄4nhokuh@QkStnkjh@jktLo1⁄2 ds
fjDr inksa ds lkis{k fu;qfDr gsrq iSuy@izLrko
miyC/k djk;s tkus ds laca/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr
fo"k;d
vius
i=
la[;k&543]544]545@U;k; lgk0 fnukad 10-06-2018]
rFkk
fofHkUu
i=
la[;k&7510]7511]7512]7513]7514@U;k;
lgk0
fnukad 10-07-2018] dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V
djsaA

2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk
gS fd ftyk@vij@lgk;d] 'kkldh; vf/koDrk
1⁄4nhokuh@QkStnkjh@jktLo1⁄2 ds fjDr inksa ds lkis{k
miyC/k djk;s x;s iSuy ds laca/k esa fof/k ijke'khZ
funsf'kdk ds dfri; izkfo/kkuksa dk vuqikyu ugha
fd;k x;k gSA vr% mDr iSuy bl vk'k; ls layXu
dj okil fd;s tkrs gSa fd d`i;k fof/k ijke'khZ
funsf'kdk ds izLrj la[;k&7 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj
fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, iqu%
iSuy xfBr dj 'kklu dks miyC/k djkus dk d"V
djsa%&

1- lacaf/kr ftykf/kdkjh fof/kK oxZ laLFkk 1⁄4ckj1⁄2
ds lnL;ksa dks fjfDr;ksa ds ckjs esa lwfpr djsxkA

2- ftyk ljdkjh vf/koDrk dh n'kk esa 10 o"kZ
fof/k O;olk; fd;k gksA

3- lgk;d ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dh n'kk
esa 07 o"kZ fof/k O;olk; fd;k gksA

4- mi ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dh n'kk esa
05 o"kZ fof/k O;olk; fd;k gksA

5- vk;q] fof/kd fo'ks"k Kku] 1⁄4ckj1⁄2 esa fd;s x;s
fof/k O;olk; dh vof/kA

6- fgUnh esa izkIr ;ksX;rk,aA

7- fiNys rhu o"kksZa fof/k O;olk; dh vk; dk
fooj.kA

8- nks o"kksZa dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku muds }kjk
fd;s x;s dk;Z dk U;k;ky; }kjk lR;kfir
vkijkf/kd] flfoy
vkSj jktLo laca/kh fof/k dk;Z fd;k gSA

9- iSuy esa rhu fof/k O;olkf;;ksa ds uke gksus
pkfg,A

10- pfj=] O;olkf;d vkpj.k] mldh
vi;qDrrk] xq.kkoxq.k rFkk lR;fu"Bk ds fo"k; esa
fjiksVZA

11- flfoy vihy la0 13727@2015 LVsV
vkQ ;w0ih0 o vU; cuke vt; dqekj 'kekZ vkfn esa
ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 2611-2015 rFkk ;wfu;u vkQ bf.M;k cuke j?kqohj
flag 1⁄419891⁄2
2 ,l0,l0lh0 754 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa
iSuy Hkstk tkuk pkfg,A
layXud ;FkksDr
Hkonh;]
1⁄4vkse izdk'k1⁄2
vuq lfpoA

14. In the instructions, sent by the
District Magistrate, which are taken on
1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1355
record,
he
has
reiterated
that
the
Government had raised certain objections
with regard to the list of 51 candidates
sent through the letter dated 03.08.2018
and, in fact, it further goes to show that in
response to the letter dated 03.08.2018, a
report was sent on 12.10.2018 in
accordance with Para 7 of the L.R.
Manual and after approval of the learned
District Judge, Ballia, it is also stated that
format of the application as per Para 7 of
the L.R. Manual and guidelines, issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No. 13727 of 2015 issued vide order
dated 26.11.2015 and the guidelines
issued in Raghuvir Singh's case, the said
letter dated 12.12.2018 is also placed on
record through instructions. A perusal
whereof reveals that all the points, which
were raised in the letter dated 03.08.2018,
were clarified by the District Magistrate,
Ballia in his said communication dated
12.10.2018. There is nothing on record
that any further orders were passed
thereafter in respect of the list of 51
candidates.

15. Based upon the said facts, as
narrated above, and, as pleaded by both
the parties and as borne by the original
records. learned counsel for the petitioner
proceeded to argue that appointments
made through letter dated 29.11.2018
were wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary
to the provisions of Chapter VII of the
L.R. Manual. It is argued that the manner
of appointment smacks of non-application
of mind and is arbitrary. He has further
argued that although no person has right
to be appointed as a Government Counsel,
however, any appointment made de hors
the rules and the provisions of the L.R.
Manual as well as the pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court deserves to be
set aside. He has further argued that even
if the Government was not agreeable to
the 51 names sent by the District
Magistrate
on
the
basis
of
recommendation
of
the
Committee
constituted by the District Judge, the
Government could have appointed the
counsels on a short-term basis only in
terms of Para 7.10 of the L.R. Manual out
of the panel lawyers that existed and the
appointments could not be done of the
persons who were never on the panel and
had never undergone any procedure
whatsoever for selection and thus the
appointments
made
by
the
State
Government deserves to be quashed. The
petitioner has argued that appointments of
the District Government Counsel in the
state of Uttar Pradesh are governed by the
L.R. manual as well as under the
provisions of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. (in
relation to the Public Prosecutors and the
Additional Prosecutors, Criminal). He has
extensively argued that in terms of the
power conferred either under Section 24
Cr.P.C. or the L.R. Manual, the Under
Secretary was not empowered to send the
names as has been done by the Under
Secretary
as
he
has
no
authority
whatsoever
to
appoint
or
even
recommend for appointments, the names
as has been done by the Under Secretary
in the present case. It is argued at the bar
that the appointments are made on
considerations beyond what is prescribed
under the L.R. Manual and for oblique
motives and are politically motivated.

16. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, on the other
hand, has argued that the process of
finalizing the appointments in terms of the
advertisements dated 08.12.2017 is in
process and the present appointments are
only as stop gap arrangement till the final
selection is over. He has heavily relied
upon the letter dated 23.8.2018 to suggest
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the names as recommended by the
District Magistrate and the Committee
constituted by the District Judge, Ballia
were objected to which establishes that
the process of selection did not come to
an end and owing to government
exigencies it was necessary that stop gap
arrangements be made so the work of the
Government does not suffer and, thus, it
is prayed that the writ petition is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed heavy reliance on the judgement in
the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay
Kumar Sharma and another, (2016) 15
SCC 289, the judgement in the case of State
of U.P. and another vs. Johri Mal, (2004) 4
SCC 714 and State of Punjab and another
vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another,
2016 (6) SCC 1, Kumari Shrilekha
Vidyarthi Etc. vs. State of U.P. And Ors,
1991 1 SCC 212. To buttress his case that the
appointments made are contrary to the L.R.
Manual, Section 24 Cr.P.C and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgements relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner.

18. On the basis of the pleadings,
exchanged, perusal of records and the
submissions made at the bar, the points
that emerge for consideration are whether
the manner of appointment of the 14
persons, impugned in the present writ
petition are in accordance with law
applicable for appointment to the post of
D.G.C., Additional D.G.C. and Assistant
D.G.C. and whether the appointments so
made can meet the test of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.

19. We have given our anxious
consideration to the facts pleaded and
brought on record at the bar as well as the
judgements relied upon by the parties. In
the case of State of U.P. and another vs.
Johri Mal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the renewal of the term of
D.G.C. (Criminal) after analysing the
statutory provisions of section 24 Cr.P.C.
as well as the provisions of L.R. Manual
concerning the appointments of the
District Government Counsels in the State
of U.P. and the scope of judicial review
with regard to the appointments made by
the State Government in terms of the
powers conferred under Section 24
Cr.P.C. as well as the L.R. Manual. In
para 28, 30, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 56 has
observed with regard to scope of judicial
are as under:

"28. The Scope and extent of power
of the judicial review of the High Court
contained
in
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India would vary from
case to case, the nature of the order, the
relevant statute as also the other relevant
factors including the nature of power
exercised by the public authorities,
namely, whether the power is statutory,
quasi judicial or administrative. The
power of judicial review is not intended to
assume a supervisory role or done the
robes of omnipresent. The power is not
intended either to review governance
under the rule of law nor do the courts
step into the areas exclusively reserved by
the suprema lex to the other organs of the
State. Decisions and actions which do not
have adjudicative disposition may not
strictly fall for consideration before a
judicial review court. The limited scope
of judicial review succinctly put are :

(i) Courts, while exercising the
power of judicial review, do not sit in
appeal
over
the
decisions
of
administrative bodies;
1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1357

(ii) A petition for a judicial review
would lie only on certain well-defined
grounds.

(iii)
An
order
passed
by
an
administrative
authority
exercising
discretion
vested
in
it,
cannot
be
interfered in judicial review unless it is
shown that exercise of discretion itself is
perverse or illegal.

(iv) A mere wrong decision without
anything more is not enough to attract the
power of judicial review; the supervisory
jurisdiction conferred on a Court is
limited to seeing that Tribunal functions
within the limits of its authority and that
its decisions do not occasion miscarriage
of justice.

(v) The Courts cannot be called upon
to undertake the Government duties and
functions. The Court shall not ordinarily
interfere with a policy decision of the
State. Social and economic belief of a
Judge should not be invoked as a
substitute for the judgment of the
legislative bodies.

30. It is well-settled that while
exercising the power of judicial review
the Court is more concerned with the
decision making process than the merit of
the decision itself. In doing so, it is often
argued by the defender of an impugned
decision that the Court is not competent to
exercise its power when there are serious
disputed questions of facts; when the
decision of the Tribunal or the decision of
the fact finding body or the arbitrator is
given finality by the statute which
governs a given situation or which, by
nature of the activity the decision maker's
opinion on facts is final. But while
examining and scrutinizing the decision
making process it becomes inevitable to
also appreciate the facts of a given case as
otherwise the decision cannot be tested
under
the
grounds
of
illegality,
irrationality or procedural impropriety.
How far the court of judicial review can
reappreciate the findings of facts depends
on the ground of judicial review. For
example, if a decision is challenged as
irrational,
it
would
be
well-nigh
impossible to record a finding whether a
decision is rational or irrational without
first evaluating the facts of the case and
coming to a plausible conclusion and then
testing the decision of the authority on the
touch-stone of the tests laid down by the
Court with special reference to a given
case. This position is well settled in
Indian administrative law. Therefore, to a
limited extent of scrutinizing the decision
making process, it is always open to the
Court to review the evaluation of facts by
the decision maker.

40. So long as in appointing a
counsel the procedures laid down under
the Code of Criminal Procedure are
followed and a reasonable or fair
procedure is adopted, the Court will
normally not interfere with the decision.
The nature of the office held by a lawyer
vis-`-vis the State being in the nature of
professional engagements, the courts are
normally charry to over-turn any decision
unless an exceptional case is made out.
The question as to whether the State is
satisfied with the performance of its
counsel or not is primarily a matter
between it and the counsel. The Code of
Criminal Procedure does not speak of
renewal or extension of tenure. The
extension of tenure of public prosecutor
or the district counsel should not be
compared with the right of renewal under
a licence or permit granted under a
statute. The incumbent has no legal
enforceable right as such. The action of
the State in not renewing the tenure can
be subjected to judicial scrutiny inter alia
on the ground that the same is arbitrary.
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The courts normally would not delve into
the records with a view to ascertain as to
what impelled the State not to renew the
tenure of a public prosecutor or a district
counsel. The jurisdiction of the courts in a
case of this nature would be to invoke the
doctrine
of
'Wednesbury
Unreasonableness'
as
developed
in
Associated Picture House vs. Wednesbury
Corporation (1947) 2 All ER 640).

42. It may be true that the Legal
Remembrancer's Manual provides for
renewal
but
it
contains
executive
instructions which even do not meet the
requirements of clause (3) of Article 166
of
the
Constitution.
The
Legal
Remembrancer's Manual is not a law
within the meaning of Article 13 of the
Constitution of India.

43. The State, however, while
appointing a counsel must take into
account
the
following
fundamental
principles which are required to be
observed
that
good
and
competent
lawyers are required to be appointed for
(i) good administration of justice; (ii) to
fulfill its duty to uphold the rule of law;
(iii) its accountability to the public; and
(iv) expenditure from the tax payers'
money.

44. Only when good and competent
counsel are appointed by the State, the
public interest would be safeguarded. The
State
while
appointing
the
public
prosecutors must bear in mind that for the
purpose of upholding the rule of law,
good
administration
of
justice
is
imperative which in turn would have a
direct
impact
on
sustenance
of
democracy. No appointment of public
prosecutors or district counsel should,
thus, be made either for pursuing a
political purpose or for giving some
undue advantage to a section of people.
Retention of its counsel by the State must
be weighed on the scale of public interest.
The State should replace an efficient,
honest and competent lawyer, inter alia,
when it is in a position to appoint a more
competent lawyer. In such an event, even
a good performance by a lawyer may not
be of much importance.

45. However, malice in law can also
be a ground for judicial review.

56. We would, however, like to
lay stress on the fact that the consultation
with the District Judge must be an
effective one. The District Judge in turn
would be well advised to take his
colleagues into confidence so that only
meritorious and competent persons who
can maintain the standard of public office
can be found out.

20. The Supreme Court also
extensively dealt with the nature of the
office of the District Government Counsel
in para 71 to 78 which is recorded as
under:

"71. The District Government
counsel appointed for conducting civil as
also criminal cases hold offices of great
importance. They are not only officers of
the court but also the representative of the
State. The court reposes a great deal of
confidence in them. Their opinion in a
matter carries great weight. They are
supposed to render independent, fearless
and non-partisan views before the court
irrespective of the result of litigation
which may ensue.

72. The Public Prosecutors have
greater responsibility. They are required
to perform statutory duties independently
having regard to various provisions
contained in the Code of Criminal
1 All. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1359
Procedure and in particular Section 320
thereof.

73. The public prosecutors and the
Government counsel play an important role in
administration of justice. Efforts are required
to be made to improve the management of
prosecution in order to increase the certainty
of conviction and punishment for most serious
offenders and repeaters. The prosecutors
should not be over-burdened with too many
cases of widely varying degree of seriousness
with too few assistants and inadequate
financial resources. The prosecutors are
required to play a significant role in the
administration of justice by prosecuting only
those who should be prosecuted and releasing
or directing the use of non-punitive methods
of treatment of those whose cases would best
be processed.

74. The District Government
Counsel represent the State. They, thus,
represent the interest of general public
before a court of law.