Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from the State of Uttar Pradesh's refusal to renew the tenure of three Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) at Budaun. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma, and Naresh Chandra Sharma were appointed for fixed terms, which were renewed from time to time. By order dated 1 October 1992, the State Government declined further renewal. The three advocates challenged the order in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, which allowed their writ petition and quashed the refusal as arbitrary. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal questions were whether the appointment of a District Government Counsel under Chapter VII of the U.P. Legal Remembrancer's Manual is an employment or a professional engagement, and whether renewal could be claimed as a matter of right. The respondents argued that the Manual's provisions, including the prohibition on political activities and maintenance of character rolls, indicated employment, and that para 7.13 prescribing superannuation age of 62 years conferred a right to continue until that age. They also invoked Section 24(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State contended that renewal is not an automatic right under para 7.08 and that refusal was based on valid reasons. The Supreme Court rejected the respondents' assertion that the appointment is to a Government post. Pointing to para 7.06(3), which expressly stated that appointment of a legal practitioner as District Government Counsel is only professional engagement terminable at will on either side and not appointment to a post under the Government, the Court held that the nature is a professional engagement for a fixed term requiring express renewal. Para 7.13 only prescribed an upper age limit and did not confer a right to continue until 62 years. The Court also noted that Section 24 CrPC does not speak about extension or renewal of the term of a Public Prosecutor, relying on Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. The Court further relied on Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. to affirm that renewal cannot be claimed as a matter of right. On the question of arbitrariness, the Court upheld the High Court's finding. The State Government sought to justify refusal solely on the ground that there was no recommendation made by the District authorities as required by para 7.08. However, the High Court found that the District Officer's report was favourable and the District Judge had recommended renewal. Thus the only ground was non-existent, leading to the conclusion that the refusal was arbitrary and based on a non-existent ground. The Court noted that after the decision in Shrilekha Vidyarthi, State action refusing renewal can be quashed if arbitrary. During the Supreme Court hearing, the respondents submitted that they were keen only to vindicate their honour and were not interested in continuing as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal); they would not seek consequential relief of reconsideration. The Court observed that in the meantime other persons had been appointed in their place and had not been impleaded as parties; therefore, any order with potential to displace them would be inappropriate. The Court modified the High Court's order and set aside the direction to reconsider the respondents for renewal. The appeal was partly allowed: the High Court's finding of arbitrariness was upheld, but the consequential relief was denied.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Government Counsel Appointment - Nature of Engagement - U.P. Legal Remembrancer's Manual, Para 7.06(3) - Appointment of District Government Counsel is only professional engagement terminable at will on either side, not appointment to a post under Government; no right to automatic renewal. Court considered para 7.13 as only upper age limit and Section 24 CrPC not applicable to renewal. Held that appointment is for fixed term requiring express renewal; no employment relationship. (Paras 2-6) B) Constitutional Law - Arbitrariness in State Action - Article 14 Constitution of India - State action refusing renewal of District Government Counsel can be quashed if arbitrary. High Court found only ground for refusal, absence of recommendations by District authorities as required by para 7.08, was non-existent; report of District Officer was favourable and District Judge recommended renewal. Held that action was arbitrary and on non-existent ground; High Court's conclusion upheld. (Paras 7-9) C) Administrative Law - Relief - Consequential Reappointment - Because respondents sought only vindication of honour and did not seek consequential relief of reconsideration, and other persons had been appointed without being impleaded, Court modified High Court's order and set aside direction to reconsider respondents for renewal; appeal partly allowed. Held that no further relief appropriate. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether refusal to renew the tenure of Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) was arbitrary; Whether an appointee as District Government Counsel under the U.P. Legal Remembrancer's Manual has a right to automatic renewal up to the age of 62 years; Nature of appointment whether professional engagement or Government service.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed: High Court's finding that refusal was arbitrary upheld; direction to reconsider respondents for renewal set aside; no further relief granted because respondents did not seek it and other persons appointed in meantime not impleaded.
Law Points
- Appointment of District Government Counsel under U.P. Legal Remembrancer's Manual is professional engagement terminable at will
- not appointment to post under Government
- No legal practitioner has right to automatic renewal of term as District Government Counsel
- State action refusing renewal can be quashed if arbitrary
- Refusal of renewal based on non-existent or extraneous ground is arbitrary and violative of Article 14
- Section 24 CrPC does not apply to renewal of appointment
- Para 7.13 of Manual prescribes upper age limit not right to continue.
