Holding

The Supreme Court held that the writ petitions were infructuous and dismissed them, leaving the State's decision not to renew the DGCs' terms untouched.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh declined to renew the terms of several District Government Counsels (DGCs). The DGCs filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court, which directed the State to renew their appointments. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction and that the DGCs, not being civil servants, had no legal right to renewal. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners were no longer holding the DGC offices, rendering the writ petitions infructuous, and therefore dismissed the appeals without addressing the merits. It referred to the principles of judicial review laid down in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal and held that no further order was necessary, leaving the matter to be decided by the State when vacancies arise.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in directing the State to renew the terms of District Government Counsels.
Whether District Government Counsels have a legal right to renewal of their term under administrative law.
Whether the writ petitions filed by the DGCs became infructuous after they ceased to hold office.
Scope of judicial review over the State's decision not to renew DGC appointments.

Subjects

judicial reviewdistrict government counselrenewal of termwrit petitionArticle 14administrative discretioninfructuous petition

Judgment

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.' ' . ...

Judicial Review:
D
State Government's decision declining to renew term of District
Government Counsel-Judicial review of-Jn view of the legal principles as
regards power ofjudicial review of High Court laid down in State of U.P. v.
Johri Mal*, appeals disposed of
E 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
F
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.
D
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 E
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted in S.L.Ps.

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 professional
C engagement but proceeded to consider the individual cases on merits. While
dismissing 24 writ petitions, the High Court allowed I 0 writ petitions upon
entering into the merit of the matter. The High Court held that the performance
of the respondents having been found to be satisfactory by the District
Officer as well as the District Judge and, furthermore, keeping in view of the
fact that their names were recommended, the State Goverriment could not
D have declined to renew their term. The High Court observed that it would be
fallacious to equate the professional engageme;nt by private persons or a
party with the appointment of DGC by the State as it is not so free as an
individual or a private person in that behalf having regard to the fact that it
is answe.rable and accountable to the public.
E The High Court further opined that the impugned action on the part of
the State being arbitrary and not bona fide the same cannot be sustained. The
High Court was further of the view that although prim'arily it is for the State
,
to see the overall performance of the District Government Counsel and make .....
its own assessment on the question as to whether the term of an incumbent
F is to be renewed or not but it is also essential that the parameters which are
set by the State to judge the suitability of the .persons for the purposes of
his retention should be reasonable 'and not arbitrary.

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would inter alia submit that having regard to the decision of this
G Court in Harpal Singh Chauhan and Ors. etc. v. State of V.P., [1993] 3 SCC
552 and State of V.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Ors., [1995] 6 SCC 527,
the High Court committed an error insofar as it sought to substitute its own
views over that of the State. The learned counsel would contend that as the
District Government Counsel do not hold a civil post, they cannot be said to
H have been any legal right in the matter of renewal of their term.
STATE v. N.P. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 533
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the A
respondents, on the other hand, would support the judgment of the High
Court contending that the action on the part of the appellant was arbitrary
and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

This Court while granting leave stayed the operation of the judgment
by an order dated 26.04.1999. The said interim order of stay passed by this ' B
Court was confirmed by an order dated 31.01.2000. The respondents, therefore,
have not been holding the office of the District Government Counsel for a
long time. We, therefore, at this stage 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 herein have become infructuous and, thus, are liable to be ' C
dismissed as such. They, however, may, as and when vacancies arise, file
applications in terms of the Legal Rememberancer Manual for their appointment ,
as Public Prosecutors or Additional Public Prosecutors.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, however, have
made submissions as regard the scope of judicial review in such matter. Scope ' D
of judicial review in such matters had been considered by a 3-Judge Bench
of this Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Johri Mal, (Civil Appeal Nos. 963-
64 of 2000) disposed of today.

Keeping in view of the fact that the legal principles as regard the power '
of judicial review of the High Court have been laid down by this Court in the E
case of Johri Mal (supra), we are of the opinion that nothing further is
required to be said in these appeals. These appeals are, therefore, disposed '
of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

RP. Appeals disposed of.